The Immolation of Total War's Player Freedom

​How Total War self-immolated, with its now broken flamethrowers, and then tried to be reborn from the ashes as a phoenix, to instead hatch as a scarred little ugly duckling.
The playlist for this video series:
• Total Decline: A Total...
The Reddit thread for this video series:
/ ideas_for_future_total...
Juggernauts being uncooperative:
• Total War Three Kingdo...
Medieval 2 being indomitable:
• Medieval 2 - Skipping ...
The Shogun 2 snowy peaks:
• Total War Impossible B...
Dishonored bullet dodging:
• Dishonored - Brutal Ra...
Dishonored's magic happening all on its own:
• Dishonored Live (27/8/15)
Dishonored 2's blink equivalent timings being off:
• Dishonored: DOTO - Dis...
Dishonored's blink being frame perfect in combat:
• Assassinating Lord Reg...
Dishonored's NPCs attacking with hearing:
• Sweeping Sokolov's Por...
Dishonored guard being trolled:
• Rothwild Slaughterhous...
Dishonored vase being knocked over for the double-juke:
• Assassinating Barriste...
Clockner's triple-juke with bend time:
• Dishonored - A Captain...
Dishonored magnum opus:
• Dishonored - Ultimate ...
Total War Cat's Chain Reactioning in Napoleon. Well edited original that you need to see:
• Napoleon Total War. Ро...
The Nagashino spaced hill deployment variation:
• The Battle of Nagashin...
The supporting gameplay that conveys firearm mechanics in Warhammer:
• ur gay
Weathering the storm in Rome 2, unsuccessfully:
• Rome 2 - Rome Campaign... t=126
Testudo being broken in Rome 2, even after several patches:
• Rome 2 - Testing Testu...
The awful "testudo" of Three Kingdoms:
• Total War: Three Kingd...
Rome 1 being effortlessly supreme:
• Rome: Total War Being ... , • Rome Total War - Testu...
Hugo Martin DOOM interview:
• Designing DOOM Eternal...
Clockner's beasting on DOOM 2016:
• Doom - Kadingir Sanctu...
The modular approach to armies being done in 2013:
• Shogun 2 - Otomo Campa...
Ents with turret-arms:
• TW WH2 Video example 2
Cosmic's general being killed by a flag:
• Total War: Rome 2 - Po...
Rome 2 early AI running through pikes to get to the capture point:
• TW: Rome II Funny Glit...
The first taking of Kyoto on turn 1:
• Taking kyoto with hatt...
Landing on Kyushu as the Hattori in early game:
• Shogun 2 - Hattori Cam...
The swinging chains of platformers in DOOM Eternal:
• Doom Eternal - Exultia...
The greater absurdity that looms for Total War naval combat:
• Total War: Rome 2 - Ma...
Rome 2's broken AI on launch:
• Total War: Rome II Ang...
4 losses in Troy:
• 4 LOSSES in Achilles' ...
Shogun 2 letting you use units in novel ways:
• Total War Impossible B...
Thanks to Clockner, Total War Cat, RepublicOfPlay, Saif, Roadie, RegularGhost and Dakky for their part in my research and preparations for the video. This was a pretty big undertaking.
Special Thanks to @Total War CAT for Russian translation.
#totalwar #emergentgameplay #dontcarelookscool
0:00 Modern Total War
3:00 Trainwrecks and dumpster fires
4:40 Swimming to safety
6:25 Emergent Gameplay
8:10 Sweet spots. Hitting and Missing.
10:05 Discovering and building
11:45 Improvising in Total War
19:20 Rome 2's launched testudo
21:25 The awful "testudo" of Three Kingdoms
23:50 Rome 1 being supreme
28:30 Funnelling players into playing "the right way".
34:00 The fallacy of difficulty-based combat modifiers
38:42 Acting without anticipation
46:00 Army limits and Supply lines
47:30 Shogun 2 being the true sandbox
50:00 The false narrative of diversity
53:00 The fallacy of unit diversity
55:00 Meaningful decisions and family trees
1:04:00 Pre-conceived gameplay is superficial
1:05:00 Standards and the future
Best way to support me and what I do:
/ volound
❤️ Thanks to all supporters ❤️
My complete gaming setup:
www.amazon.co....
Join my Discord server and elevate those sons of bitches:
/ discord
My FB Page for ranty longposts:
/ volound
My Twitter shitterings:
/ volound
My Twitch:
/ volound

[@Volound]

Black powder guns in Warhammer can arc their fire like bows, but flame throwing siege engines in Three kingdoms can't project their flame over a tiny barricade in front of them. Modern Total War in a nutshell. The Reddit thread for this video series: www.reddit.com/r/Volound/comments/is77kf/ideas_for_future_total_war_critique_subjects/ And the actual KZbin playlist for it: kzbin.info/aero/PLlmEEm6A0j5BqZmcDFQHFJeS64-Mg2uAH

[@Volound]

@@thegreatrainman2336 heres your homework. kzbin.info/aero/PLlmEEm6A0j5Amf0UnaDdWzvarY0pKI2cM

[@cl1cka]

@@Volound Here is your homework. kzbin.info/aero/PLFJQhY3l3azZscbIrxO93qGLYMC74X9pw Or check the Everchosen Tournament. Total War Warhammer is BY FAR, the most diverse and interesting of all Total War games. The sheer number of units and strategies and lords you can deploy is amazing...... It also has a BUSY multiplayer scene with tournaments going every month and watching the games is fucking amazing.....

[@shrekas2966]

Bows can't shoot over hills as well. You cant shoot something you cant see. I have never been in a medieval battle, you probably just shoot into general enemy direction. but in target shooting, traditional bows have extremely low range. You can fire over the hill, but that wont achieve anything.

[@user-zv6xz1br7g]

Nice vid, dude. How about paradox strategies? Even spreadsheets provide more freedom than modern TW games...

[@shrekas2966]

@@thegreatrainman2336 Shooting without targeting something is not effective. Again, maybe in battlefields units shot just in general direction. If you are shooting somebody over a hill, it means that the arrow will have to go up and down. You know how arrows can be shot upwards like artillery in Shogun 2? Yeah, that's not right. For starters, it means that the bow is weak. Very weak. We are talking like children bows. That wont penetrate shields or even thick clothing. The most important thing is physics. When you shoot upwards, your arrow loses power, when traveling up, but gains power when traveling down. This means that the arrow has only been losing a lot of power, because of air resistance. Shooting somebody you cant see, again, is not a good idea. Shooting upwards with a bow is a very bad idea, it doesn't have the power.

[@tazugablackfyre9104]

In my opinion the most underrated feature ever, was how in Medival 2 units would change their visuals corresponding to the armor upgrade. Why did they not continue with this, it was a really nice touch. Any ideas? Any info about this?

[@sorry_no_name]

I used to make custom battles to just compare those armor upgrades. Such a memories)

[@NHJ_pLeppen]

For one, with time you had the option of "evolving units" that kinda took over. And i dont mind it. But there could be both in my opinion.

[@ascendedbro1828]

Because attention to details is seen as an unnecessary expense for a company that is focusing entirely on cash-grabbing rather than creating the best gameplay experience achievable.

[@violatorut2003]

Probably because few people noticed it. If only a few people notice it then why do it? That, and the modding community could easily add that if they wanted to. They have to choose where to focus their resources on more essential things, they are a company after all.

[@Protector1rk]

I think it's because med 2 was develop by Creative Assembly Australia.

[@stevenjeffrey9877]

I was devestated when Rome 2 came out and armies were tied to generals. I enjoyed using light cavalry in small forces (2-3 armies of 3-4 units) on the campaign map independently of the main army, to harass and redirect the enemy, discover ambushers, find large enemy armies and generally do light cavalry things. Now they would need a general with them and pay the army penalty.

[@21Arrozito]

In M2 I'd have a half stack of horse archers patrolling my territory to deal with the brigands and rebel armies that occasionally popped up. I would also keep a horse archer/light cav army near one of my main stacks, after my regulars beat the enemy in a major engagement, the survivors would usually retreat out of range, then I'd send my light cav/horse archer stack to finish them off.

[@oh-not-the-bees7872]

I would field all of my calvarly units into one 20 stack army and have them as reinforcements along my main army. Its absolutely brutal how many kills theyll get against the tired enemy soldiers while still fresh and unbloodied. I just love how bodies fly in a rear charge.

[@michaelgladitsch1519]

I loved having small groups defend forts, freeing up generals for main campaigns and governing. As Venice, l had a fort complex in the Nile delta to redirect Mongol armies to Cairo which was supplied with constant reinforcements every turn by way of Alexandria and Crete. Could not have done that strategy of redirection and supply in Rome 2 with the general led armies mechanic.

[@666Kaca]

Yeah 2-4 stacks were useful back then because the stupid AI kept spamming 2unit stacks running around the fucking map increasing your "devastation" in provinces. Annoying as fuck, much better now when armies are actually tied to a general.

[@666Kaca]

@Tattle Boad Yeh except for the fact that armies are either hard capped like R2 and 3 kingdoms or are exponentially more expensive so it doesnt happen

[@hagnartheviking6584]

What happend to the good speeches? I missed my King of England spending most of his adult life fighting the french and having a deep hatred for them.

[@arkoa0000]

Was your king also drunk, blood thirsty, and also had a horrid wife?

[@emergenciest]

@@arkoa0000 He already said he was the King of England

[@AlyssMa7rin]

@@emergenciest LoL!

[@SteveSmith-ty8ko]

@@emergenciest Oh my lord

[@hassarfn3557]

A bit odd

[@Renderc4t]

Despite releasing in an awful state, Empire:Total War has a place in my heart for being ambitious. It came with a lot of new features to the series like naval combat, multiple map regions and units whose behaviour can actually change the further down the research tree you go (bayonet unlocks, rank fire etc). As buggy as it was, it's a far cry from the safe and streamlined modern games like Troy. I have no hope CA will regain any of this ambition while their current style continues to print money.

[@stevejobs5533]

I agree with you, the battles are dire but it was such a massive leap forward in multiple areas. I adore the time period and still think CA hasnt surpassed the aesthetics of Naval battles in Empire

[@marekkos3513]

Empire total war , and Shogun 2 were masterpiece.After that every total war was dumped down , and gets more arcade

[@cslantz4020]

@@marekkos3513 What? Empire, a "masterpiece"? While there is enjoyment to be found, it is nothing less then pure delusion to say that Empire was great. It was, meh. Terrible battles. Terrible sieges. Terrible AI. Rushed and hyped and encouraged by nothing more then pure laymen. It is an alright game, but a joke of a total war title. Evidence of the shitshow CA was slowly turning into. Foreshadowing Rome 2 and CA's degeneracy.

[@helltarrist]

​@@cslantz4020Agreed. It wasn't great. But it's an example of how far the series have fallen since then, when people are calling that bugfest a "masterpiece". With Darthmod, though, it becomes much more playable and enjoyable. But again, that's not the point. If CA hadn't abandoned it at the time in favor of NTW and instead patched all the issues out though, I'd certainly consider it a masterpiece. But that's a long forgotten dream, like the Total War series in general. I still play Shogun 1&2 and Medieval 1&2. I hope a competitor can emerge and fuck CA with a much better game soon.

[@misterpinkandyellow74]

evert game after medieval 1 was dumbed down@@marekkos3513

[@MrKrumpetz]

I miss the days of being able to stand on a hill and that actually mean something.

[@TovKafur]

It still means, just fyi.

[@brandonden795]

In Rome I remember putting a hoplite army on a literal 60 degree slope because I parked my army right by a mountain and leveled 3 enemy armies, l didn't even watch the battle, I just left it running, good times.

[@jumapl9706]

@@marxistmystic you still can do it lmao idk what do you mean by that XD maybe you are doing it wrong

[@jumapl9706]

it still means, even in warhammer, when swords masters of hoeth can win easily against hammer units of dwarfs, simply putting them on hill will win you the fight, even lvl 1 empire arechers will win against fully lvl'ed up arhcers when put on the hill.

[@camilomayo3855]

@@jumapl9706 He means that in difficulties beyond normal, tactics like ambush become completely useless and you are relying on cheese tactics.

[@sebaszane]

I swear to Christ I've never seen one youtuber so devoted to a series, able to break it down and make something meaningful of it again and again, major props for your videos

[@whothoughtthiswasagoodidea]

LegendOfTotalWar

[@whothoughtthiswasagoodidea]

@@thegreatrainman2336 Are you supposed to let the AI win then or what? Legend plays the game like it's Factorio, autistically optimizing everything and that includes cheesing the AI, and it's fun and entertaining to watch to around 50k people daily judging by his views. If you don't like that you can roleplay on normal difficulty playing by the AI's rules, or if you want real strategy play multiplayer.

[@mk_gamíng0609]

@@thegreatrainman2336 Better than you

[@kriegundkunstk.u.k.8911]

A problem that I have with the Total War Series for quite some years now is that since Rome 2 you're forced to have generals for every army on the campaign map. It reduces significantly the dynamic of your campaign because your options of mouvement get reduced drastically. For example: Two armies are in the vicinity of a settlement of yours. Your one army nearby has only so much mouvement points to either go into the settlement or to attack one enemy army. They're both small enough that your army split in two equal parts could handle them. In Rome 1 that was possible. One half of your army with the general would attack the one army in open field whilst the other half boosted the town's defence. In Rome 2 you have to beat one of these hostile armies with the entirety of your army in one round whilst your settlement gets pillaged or conquered by the second army. It made sense in Rome 1 to have a general in your army since he boosted significantly the morale of your troops and was a powerful cavalry unit, but you had the option to risk a lower morale by sending a spliced army for having better overall mobility and for creative thinking. It was always an intriguing act to evaluate which of the ad hoc formed armies needed which unit of the original one. You look at the campaign map and assess the optimal distribution of force. And for a big hostile army you could unite the troops again. That was also quite realistic since history showed time and time again that that kind of military organisation was and is the most effective. A big blob army is easy to outmaneuver. Only for huge engagements and decisive battles all force was concentrated. In Warhammer especially it was nerve wracking in the worst sense when you were constantly harassed by little armies whilst you're limited to around 5 or 6 in midgame due to the higher upkeep with every army. So this higher upkeep also worsens the situation. Intertwined with that is the problem I have with garrisons. You have almost no choice of distribution here either. In Shogun 2 and earlier games I could put troops that were army strong but didn't have a general even in the smallest settlement . Now I have to put the entirety of a mobile army in a settlement that has strategic value to fend of invaders and - especially - keep the population happy (simpler times when you could simply slaughter them for "pacification" like in Rome 1 or Medieval 2). That reduces my freedom of choice enormously. All the while, in the heartland of my empire I have huge stacks of "dead" garrisons that guard cities completely out of reach for the enemy. Overall it's simply pretty much dumbed down in an attempt to make it more "accessible" meaning devoid of depth in order not to overwhelm new audiences with an abundance of freedom. P.S. You mentioned a lot of this already in the video. Just wanted to add some details. Appreciate your work, keep it up!

[@MD-yd8lh]

and in older totalwars you can take more than one general in army in case of needs of split armys, or death of one of the generals or leave one as governor...

[@kriegundkunstk.u.k.8911]

@@MD-yd8lh True!

[@samurguy9906]

I always use a mod that removes supply lines in warhammer. Still means each of those little garrison duty stacks has a general, but at least I can have multiple armies of weaker units doing things and consolidate them if need be rather than exclusively using high tier units in giant clumps.

[@mohamedAshraf-ln9hu]

It's not for (dumbing down), there was an exploit in Shogun 2 for infinate army movements that caused them to limit each army to a general in subsequent games, i think legand of TW covered it and if i found the video i would link it, but you also try to find it to understand.

[@Cvs999v]

I really liked Empire's massive wars with multiple armies fighting on multiple fronts. Eg, as France fighting both Prussia and Russia, through out Europe with 10 armies on each side and sending armies through Finland and Crimea to attack the Russians while being pummeled by the Mugal empire.

[@PixelatedApollo1]

Love these videos!

[@Volound]

apollo 💪

[@kingster14444]

I knew this man was a smart one

[@noahgilling3241]

Remember when u had views

[@kingster14444]

@@noahgilling3241 yeah it's almost like diverting away from a market that built up your whole channel would have an impact. Let the man do what he wants to, he's probably doin better because of it

[@rizalalbar]

You guys should collab

[@Y0UT0PIA]

Allowing the player to divide their forces allowed them to wage multiple wars and tear through the campaign map in no time if they understood the game mechanics. I think when devs saw this, their reaction was "you're not supposed to do that", so they came up with a work-around in the form of increased army costs, army limits. The same is true for a lot of other game mechanics introduced in recent titles, like garrisons. They're ways to stabilize the campaign map by minimizing the advantages players get for knowing what they are doing, with the result that you feel like you're basically struggling against the developers. Meanwhile once you know what you're doing in Rome or Medieval your powerlevel increases exponentially and it feels amazing.

[@maxgillatt4277]

While I don't like the new army system I got to admit I like garrison buildings.

[@Y0UT0PIA]

@@maxgillatt4277 I don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to take Winterfell with 20 good men while all the Stark troops are in the south

[@Levi-rz1je]

I loved being able to split my forces to deal with different threats. A small army in the south shouldnt require me to send my 20 stack away from the main threat in the North.

[@eternalasquith]

Dividing forces was removed and having to have a general was added because of a movement bug on the campaign map with the engine they couldn't be bothered to fix

[@CoffeeMaus]

I have to disagree with the power level thing. To quote: "-mid game is only hard if you're playing with the diplomatic grace of north Korea and late game is pointless to play because nothing can oppose you." He then goes on to state that Shogun 2 was the only game that made late game fun to play because massive empires would appear to challenge you. In my current Barbarian Invasion campaign as Eastern Rome I've defeated the Vandals, Huns and Sassanids and I'm currently at war with an impotent Western Rome. Their peasant stacks cant compare to my elite legions of comitatenses and eastern archers, let alone my basic cav micro skills. When I finally retake Rome from the unworthy pagan traitors I don't think I'll be fist bumping out of joy, because honestly it was too easy. I didn't even truly beat the huns or vandals, I just placed a full stack fort down on a bridge and they just kept failing to ransack the goths. At this point I realized why people play on legendary. It's the only way the AI can pose a challenge. This worries me because I'm not even half as good as Volound.

[@talavb9301]

Something that annoys me a lot is automatic replenishment. When you had to manually retrain your troops, it felt like you were actually going on campaigns. Your force got exhausted over time and hard to return to your core provinces for refitting. It make strategic development of your infrastructure more rewarding; prioritizing certain military buildings in settlements could increase your ability to supply armies in the field and allowed you to be more aggressive. Neglecting military infrastructure imposed the corresponding costs. When you withdraw an army from an active front, you had to think about how to defend it while your forces were in transit to and fro. That system also imposed a cost on fielding armies comprised primarily of elite troops; they couldn't be easily replenished, meaning that you had more effective armies that were somewhat harder to keep at effective strength. Since automatic replenishment, all you do is walk from settlement to settlement like you're toppling dominos; it's totally unrealistic and takes all the strategy out of everything. Extreme losses are acceptable as long as they're spread out between units You can recover a full army of elite troops from scratch in some hinterland province with no military infrastructure if your general and technologies have specced into replenishment. It's simply bizarre.

[@kristjantoevali4117]

Totaly agree with you

[@grimgoreironhide9985]

Going to have to disagree. Ever since I played Rome 2, Attila and Warhammer, I can't love without auto replenishment.

[@derkylos]

So much this. Having to completely re-organise your crusaders in the middle of North Africa by folding under strength units into each other, recruiting local mercenaries to fill the ranks or waiting for several years for a replenishment army to show up was one of the more interesting aspects of extended campaigning in M2TW.

[@b1indmailman]

Autoreplenishment has grown on me a lot but I wish it was similar to Shogun 2 where sure your units will replenish but its going to take like 7 turns and your options to increase the replenishment rate is very limited. Instead of Warhammer 2 where replenishment rate is the first thing you try to max out

[@talavb9301]

@Tattle Boad Pretty sure a damaged castle just slows replenishment, didn't fully stop it. It's still a fundamental divorce of military capacity from military infrastructure, which makes no sense.

[@lurchvater2387]

You are totally right. One aspect you missed (its not your focus, so i understand) tho, is the missing of empire building. In all Total War games you are building your Empire BUT in all games after Med2 and to greater extend after Shog2 you are just expanding and managing a status quo. A village does not grow anymore into a city, a well developed capital does no longer have strong economy and good armies, no, you are plonking down stat modifiers in the best min max way and be done with it, maybe gaining another slot after x amount of turns. No more are cities with different needs in keeping the populus happy and in giving you what you need to further your goals. Instead you are placing food building A because the bonuses are better at the moment then food option B, maybe you change later because the ultimate optin of B is good if combined with special effect C of town D. Yeah....no Where are the princes born unfit for the battlefield so you turned them into builders and tax+trade geniuses making huge sums of money? And dont get me startet on this province bullshit of shared modifiers and the like. No, total war does not build empires anymore, it just spreads your factions color

[@5h0rgunn45]

Yeah, the massively reduced variety and number of buildings you can have in a city makes the campaign map a lot less interesting.

[@gavins9846]

That's also something irking me. The world is just unbelievably simple. Everyone's working with the same economic and military model, and trying to max out stat-modifiers whatever they're dressed up as: buildings, generals, skills/"retainers", spread-sheet units and agents. There's only a few ways to win, and you'd win hard.. boring.

[@ascendedbro1828]

Actually in Warhammer 2 you can make a well-developed city wth a strong economy, but it is done mostly through "cheese". And the economy system is very dumbed down.

[@alexanderseverns762]

Well said.

[@lurchvater2387]

@JoeRingo118 True Sadly there is a turning point in every Med2 run where it gets boring. A problem no Total War title has solved yet. Maybe not the first time. First Mongols, Timurids, Unit the Realms etc But then...

[@GurniHallek]

17:18 Medieval 2 gunpowder: Potent enough to make your camera shake if you zoom close. Hitscan. Scares the shit out of the foe. Shogun 2 gunpowder: Some units pack enough powder into their guns that the shot goes through several men. Satisfying bullet trails. Warhammer gunpowder: So puny, the shots actually curve. Enemy can deflect the shot with a tennis racket. 49:21 Ah, remember how in the first Medieval, every unit had it's own captain, who was a general for all intends and purposes, with his own stats and traits? And you could award them with titles, give them a princess in marriage, etc.

[@MadisonRamanamabangbang]

Medieval 2 gunpowder isn't hitscan actually and works way better that it's not. If you pause as soon as you see muzzle flair, you can look and see where the bullet is in mid air.

[@robertharris6092]

Only 1 gun unit fires through multiple men.

[@accountname9506]

Most Empire TW units had captains/leaders as well, though I'm not sure if they had any stat boosts, they would march at the front of the men along with the drummer and the standard bearer, using a sword and pistol.

[@somerandomgayweeb]

​@@accountname9506 what they meant is that in Medieval 1 when you don't have a general in the army a captain would take over and effectively be a unique general and if you won a battle with that captain there was a chance for them to become an actual general instead of just being there temporarily. while it is true that in empire there are officers in individual units they weren't generals/captains that would command the force entirely

[@accountname9506]

@@somerandomgayweeb It's the same for med 2, and while in Empire you can't add them into the family, there will still be a designated "THIS DUDE IS IN CHARGE" if a general isn't in the army. I haven't tried it in Napoleon but I think it works that way there as well.

[@popsicleman8816]

His point about how many of these decisions in modern total war games arose not out of any inspiration but out of needing to cover for their incompetence is right on the money. One big example of this is siege battles in the Warhammer games. A truly perfect example of CA's baffling decisions motivated by incompetence is in the unit retreat mechanics during sieges. CA apparently could not figure out how to get attacking units to retreat back down their ladders, or to try to run through the gates to safety. So what they decided to do was that units would retreat into the settlement once broken. One may think that this sounds idiotic, but is likely harmless, since these are damaged, broken units. But the problem is that broken units can rally, and even a unit with a single model is capable of capturing victory points. This is compounded by the fact that there exists stealth units in this game who regain stealth if they are far enough away from the enemies. This can result in you destroying your enemies, only to have a lone unit of stealth squad survive and capture the flag in order to defeat your army. This leads to the player being forced to put at least one unit in the town center just to prevent such absurdity. Another example of this pattern of incompetence -> stupid decision -> bad gameplay experience comes in the form of gates. CA could not work out how to have the AI open or close gates, and decided that gates open automatically when their units are near and trying to get out. This sounds fine and is basically how it worked in Shogun 2. But the devs didn't consider the fact that they put giant monsters and cavalry the ability to batter down doors through melee attacks. So, when monsters, single entity models, and cavalry attack the door, the enemy units try to attack them, since they are close to them. This triggers the door to open, and all the units attacking the door get dragged into the settlement. As the AI no longer has units being given orders to go past the gate, the gate then closes, trapping your units inside the settlement to get surrounded and killed. This is not to mention the fact that the entire siege mechanic is stripped to its bare bones. There is only 1 wall that is fought over, rather than a full castle or settlement, and everyone has magical ladders that they pull from their asses. Ai doesn't know what to do in siege battles, so the optimal strategy is to break down one tower with artillery while zig-zagging with a single model to dodge all its shots, then just killing everyone with archer fire, or to use a flying monster and attack from the sides of the walls, since ranged units can't face that direction to fight back. This further exacerbates how much the game punishes you for daring to use melee infantry, rather than just spamming ranged units or large single entity models. Often times, it's far easier to beat enemies in sieges than in field battles, since the siege AI will just let you kill them without putting up a fight.

[@CarlGGHamilton]

I was an extremely competitive player in Shogun 2, I played against other people in the warlord mode, and excelled with a combination of yari and matchlock ashigaru. Essentially using European tactics in Japan against players fascinated with katanas. I also developed a tactic where I would have boxed guns with naginata samurai in the back and sides, and destroy the heavy infantry spam which was present at the time. But this was an effective European tactic, that didn't conform to the CA's view of what Japanese warfare should be. So they limited matchlock units to 3 ashigaru, 2 samurai and 1 monk. So I could not even use my favorite Shogun 2 tactics, in Shogun 2. Later, the fucking added fall of the samurai, where everyone has guns, and also added stuff like the Shimazu heavy gunners which just cleans entire maps. But they never removed the limits to match lock ashigaru. Fucking hell, all I want is a pike and shot TW game, and for a while Shogun 2 allowed me this in MP, I have been waiting for a decade. Pike and Shot tactics are impossible as empire in Warhammer. So god damn sad, that I have not been allowed to play how I want for a decade.

[@Volound]

makes me sad and angry to read this. BTW i was allowed to bring pure cavalry armies in shogun 2 MP and clean up game after game by frustrating everyone i came up against with extreme kiting and mounted gun cheesing. they didnt cap that at all.

[@Lx2E]

I remember Medieval 2, playing as the turks. I had an entire army sweeping through the east. Then the mongols show up with 6 WHOLE ARMIES... The most epic defense I ever had. 1 army against another 6 invading this one big town that I was holding with walls and everything. I concentrated everything in the center, set up catapults to hit the longer corridors and... man it was epic. I obviously lost... Sometimes loosing is more fun than just winning and winning and winning. Of course, you have to loose for a reason. It wasn't about stat modifiers, it was the freaking mongols man! THE MONGOLS AND THEIR HORSE ARCHERS MAN! BTW the catapults killed about 1k units... crazy Then they decided to bother someone else up north and probably faded through Poland and Germany... Watching these videos make me want to play MTW2 again!

[@oh-not-the-bees7872]

Just counter the horse archers by baiting them into a hole in youndefenses and close it with troops. Those horses dont help when youre surrounded by spears and now suddenly with pikes at your back.

[@flyingisaac2186]

I remember a battle in Medieval 1. I was losing a battle badly to the Egyptians, losing lots to missile fire from bowmen, so as a last throw of the dice, I gathered all my ragged cavalry and smashed into the core of the Egyptian army, and somehow won. Now it seems a matter of spreadsheet battling. I just cannot see the current TW games providing any real opening to the clever and outnumbered. Historically Alexander the Great was outmatched in most battles. Darius had fine hoplite mercenaries, strong cavalry, and poor infantry. Alexander had Companion cavalry and greater numbers of highly experienced phalangites (some in their 40s or older), great Thessalian cavalry too, and could manoeuvre all very skilfully. Yet the newer TWs seem to have retrogressed with smaller armies with better units and skilful (or opportune, like me) handling. At least Rome 2 moved from not being functional to a quite good game.

[@andyz7711]

That's still my choise me2 or mods to it

[@bugrilyus]

loose and lose are different words.

[@230mps]

Sick of playing total war and having nothing ever happen. It’s like either I easily lay waste to everything in my path, or I am completely unreasonably overwhelmed. Frustrating that I might play a campaign in barbarian invasion and whoop everyone’s asses. But if I choose to play as the goths, I get attacked by like 15 stacks of vandal and Hun hordes at the same time on like the 4th turn. Shit….even if they just gave me a head start of another single turn to prepare, that campaign would actually be an epic defensive war.

[@tiwakingsgaming6370]

40:11 Warlord: What is best in life? Conan: **To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!** Warlord: *No it is taking their flag*

[@patzeb21]

When I was younger, all I did was play Total War, to be specific, Rome 1 and Medieval 2. Precisely do to the fact that I could approach them in my own way. Today I mostly play CRPGs, because they are the only games that give me that amount of agency

[@Mr_D_OG]

why did you stop playing rome 1 and medieval 2?especially nowadays with the cool mods out there both total conversions and vanilla styler mods,i get it,it is old games and may run terribly on certain setups,but it is such great games and so much more fun to play,there is also workarround to make them run better,there is so many videos of people palying modern total war games it is as if people forgot the real good total war games.

[@galvatron0810]

@@Mr_D_OG yeah with a couple of mods you can make rome 1 and med 2 awesome, i play a lot of mods but most of them are unplayable due to crashes but this can be fixed by the 4gb plug in and a few tweaks to the code, the best mod currently on med 2 imo is divide and conquer because thr mod team still makes content

[@Mr_D_OG]

@@galvatron0810 faerun forgotten realms total war frist campaign version came out today get it now

[@galvatron0810]

@@Mr_D_OG oh shit i love forgotten realms

[@Mr_D_OG]

@@galvatron0810 i just finished testing it,it is pretty good,runs fine and campaign works,also the units look great you should try it,the download is just about a few more than 900 mbs it should finish quickly,check medieval 2 kingdoms mod page on moddb.

[@clockner]

Another very interesting elaborative and most definitely high value video from you, as to be expected. It's amazing how these issues, these design choices, translate throughout completely different types of games. Also, that scene with cosmic, where he won, but he didn't, lmfao...

[@Volound]

once you know the problem, the pattern is unmistakeable. not many people in our positions and with our mindsets and able to provide these kinds of clarities. it should not be so rare, but its rarity motivates me to make the most of it. ..and the world awaits clockner videos of the same genre and value. and i knew you would love the flashbacks. we must never forget.

[@VanadzorImSirac]

clockner plays rome 1 confirmed

[@432Ant1]

Volound lauds Shogun 2 but it forces you to play the same way every time because of the realm divide mechanic!! Empire was full of unrealised potential but I still count it as the last good Total War game before they stopped even trying to making a strategy game and started building boring battle sims where it feels like nothing is at stake. To me, every game after Shogun 2 is just Shogun 2 with a skin on it.

[@ms_publisher7143]

@Antoni Pippas empire had lots of buggy issues and fucked up certain things but in the grand scheme of things what it tried to achieve and the new elements it brought were excellent and make it a stand out total war title the likes of which have never been seen again. The scale of the map, trade system, buildings outside of the main towns/cities, colonial nations, trading posts, varaity of locations and cultures, and the freedom of play these bring make the game a classic flawed by a dumbing down of the population mechanic, a limiting of building slots within a town or city, and poorly designed ai. I come back to the game occasionally simply beacsue there is no total war like it and as such its issues can be ignored for the split second im able to live my fantasy of ruling over a colonial trade power with lands spread across half the globe from India to Canada.

[@jordankristoff5406]

@@432Ant1 realm divide is about problem with campaign map, while Volound is mostly talking about gameplay on the battle map

[@Claudiustheimmortal]

I generally feel bad for playing the campaigns on normal, and I could not put it into words as you did, as for my own views regarding AI and campaign overall difficulty. It frustrates me that people complain the game is too easy like we need yet more AI bonuses to everything and to make the game harder, I don't even agree we really need better AI either, a common complaint regarding the current difficulty in Total War, because if every battle had an even a semi capable commander behind it, you would have to rely on more or less everything to land and go perfectly, every battle, every exchange in the battle, every AI decision on the campaign map. Instead I would prefer if the AI was more dynamic, giving high skilled and 5 star generals more and more complex AI the higher the star ranking is, and be done with the AI bonuses, gives me more purpose for killing off generals via assassination, plus the immersion would be insane.

[@divqu]

If I am not mistaken this actually used to be the case in Medieval 2. Where in battle opfor would react slower and less rational to your displacement. And indeed that sometimes could give a rationale for an assassination, to tip the scales to your favour, other than the general being a superhuman or giving stat bonuses to the enemy army. Conversely, and I always found that interesting as well, it meant that you could make a meaningful choice which army you would command and which reinforcing army should be commanded by the AI. For this mechanic (again if I am not mistaken) also came into play for yourself in a situation in which you had multiple armies, but were restricted to commanding only 20 units at the same time. Let the more competent general command your reinforcements and he will make (slightly) better battlefield decisions. But I also remember the cringe of sometimes seeing your reinforcing general throw some good units away. But I also found it verisimilar on a certain level. In an honour based society where code of conduct and etiquette is highly valued (e.g. feudal Japan or medieval European societies) over what we nowadays would consider rational decisions and sound tactical thinking, they would sometimes make very different decisions ('we knights will charge first, for we have a higher standing than you foot soldiers').

[@lucasart328]

that will actually require effort and time. better make a shitty total war game instead and more moneyz

[@alcibiades4716]

I would agree, but i have never used assasins becaise not once have they worked against anything remotely threatening, maybe its me, maybe its the fact i breifly played shogun 1 before playing rome 1 and i have say 200 hours give/take max, or maybe its down to shitty progression skill trees based on probability and luck. To put it this way, i had a turn 1, 4 star assasin whos natural ability to desrtoy was gone by turn 10 becaise the only thing he could pull off was damaging a West roman shrine to some god and didnt get anything for it, meaning zero progression from that to more useful buildings like barracks, and after commanders. Because chance of getting even a baracks stood at 30/40% and a small time commander with 3 units in army rota was 12%

[@raifthemad]

I personally can't even start a campaign on higher difficulty than normal. Not that I couldn't beat it, but I find the idea of ruling a soy kingdom repulsive. Since every other faction gets insane bonuses my identical troops feel like a bunch of betas. And apparently me as a ruler emits some beta rays, as soon as you confederate an army they go on immediate soy diet and I can not bring myself to lead the weaklings.

[@Claudiustheimmortal]

@@thegreatrainman2336 You should watch the video again I think you've missed the point.

[@Intranetusa]

RTW2 on release: Testudos are 100% useless against arrows. 3KTW: Testudos are overpowered by providing 100% protection at all angles against arrows. RTW1: Gets testudo just right by having significant protection against arrows but leaving vulnerabilities by allowing some arrows to pass through and making the rear vulnerable.

[@catalyst772]

Rome 1 testudo was good in sieges to absorb tower arrows, which is how it was used historically iirc

[@chrisjames3272]

I think that there is a fundamental divergence in how Total War games were conceptualised in the old vs new games. Shogun, Medieval 1, Rome, and Medieval 2 essentially tried to model units as accurately to 'real life' as possible. You could see that by looking at the stats files; a unit was composed of a whole bunch of individuals, each with stats denoting their skill, defense etc. The way the units operated as the end result of this modelling. Empire and onwards (I am guessing Shogun 2 as well but I never played it) had a fundamentally different concept. A unit was not composed of individuals, rather it operated as a whole. I will use Empire because it is the clearest example; a unit of line infantry has a bunch of stats, the most important being reload, accuracy and morale. The unit could not fire unless every single soldier was in the precise position. What would happen is that if two equal line infantry engaged, whichever was more cohesive always won, because the ridiculous mechanic that every single soldier had to be in perfect position before firing. It is easier to conceptualise a unit of line infantry as a whole bunch of matchsticks that ALL have to be in a very precise position before being lit. Obviously in that era this was the case, but the way mechanics worked messed it up, because even slight terrain details can kill a formation. Lets look at what each of these systems result in; Empire; a period where battlefield manuaovoring was more essential than any other, and the army that positions well and moves correctly wins. In this period, marching under fire in formation to get to the optimal range and unleash a devastating volley wins the day - assuming you do so better than your opponent. BUT the mechanics destroy this and instead encourage slowly and carefully positioning an army in a defensive formation and waiting for the ai to blunder forward and suffer your volleys. Which is fine, but dull. Where it kills it is this; losing a single man after lining up requires the whole line to sometimes reform before firing. So whichever side fires first has the advantage, regardless of the range. Rome (or shogun 1, medieval 1&2); Because units and individuals are accurately modelled, without ridiculous mechanics stiffling creativity, there are endless ways to use your forces. However, because of the accuracy in modelling, certain behaviors are encouraged. Using solid infantry to hold a line whilst outflanking is encouraged, using skirmishers to take a small early toll on an opponent before engaging is encouraged (as it will give your infantry a slight advantage), correct use of terrain is encouraged. In short, the Pre Empire games encourage using real battlefield tactics to win as they confer a realistic advantage. Post Empire encourages exploiting mechanics, most of which results in either blatent abuse, or overly careful, dull behavior. Neither encourage real invention. I used to fucking love reading military history books and applying them to total war games. I practically destroyed my fathers hardback copy of Montgomery's a History of Warfare I read it so much. It felt so good reading about a battle and a technique used in it and finding that applying it to these games worked. And I remember the disappointment I found when I tried the same thing with Empire. There is no point using combined arm manuovoring like Gustavus of Sweden, it didn't work. Why bother learning how Frederick the Great used his Prussian line infantry, because sure as shit his tactics didn't work.

[@parentedivino5466]

Everything correct with what you've said, except for that "I fucking love" that's making me cringe

[@dragonforks93]

I think the historical battles in post-Empire Total War (excluding Shogun 2) suffer the most for this. Want to fight the Battle of Zama and recreate one of the most epic confrontations in human history by simulating how Scipio arranged his legionaries into columns to lure the enemy elephants into a trap? Tough shit, the AI will just bumrush you and since Infantry is crippled so much by difficulty modifiers you are going to lose unless you sit at the edge of the map and pick off Hannibals units one by one.

[@chrisjames3272]

@@dragonforks93 Completely agree and I think this is the saddest part. There is no doubt about it, the absolute STRONGEST feature of Total War should be historical battles. The history, strategy and tactics are the BIGGEST draw of the game. These are the parts that people love, it's what makes it a unique series. But, and it's a big but, the developers seem incapable of making an engine that can do this. I honestly think that the developers don't understand what makes Total War special, as they don't appear to put effort into these aspects. How hard can it be to make an AI that can flank, defend, use formations effectively etc. They did it for years. I don't think it's necessarily the engines fault, because plenty of mods for these games get the ai to fight more effectively. I just don't think it's a priority for them. It appears that it is easier to fix battle issues with a million modifiers than to make the ai smarter. Edge sitting remains the most effective strategy in Total War because it takes advantage of the idiocy of the ai. Yet Darthmod can turn that same AI into something somewhat competent. It's obvious that movement, strategy, effective combines arm tactics are simply not a priority to the developers. LJ Jr I have no shame for loving Empire. It still remains the best realtime tactics game representing that period. It's a shame that it could have been a million times better.

[@dragonforks93]

@@chrisjames3272 Yeah I think you're right on the money about the history being the most important ingredient, Rome 1 & Medieval 2 got me into ancient and medieval history. The attention to detail was the design philosophy of those games which affected how formations, maneuvering and mass all interacted with each other on a strategic level. The ranged weapons are a perfect example, in Rome 1 & Medieval 2, not only was every individual soldier in a unit a mass unto themselves, but even their projectiles had mass. Using Testudo in Rome 1 is a great example because even though while turtled up Legionaries could still be felled with ranged fire from the front when an arrow or javeling slipped through the cracks. It's a real shame that CA decided to move away from the military simulator approach to Total War in favour of games that might look beautiful but have all the depth of a roadside pothole, I always described Warhammer as "overbalanced", where it was impossible to win against overwhelming odds without the sufficient use of cheese.

[@michaelgladitsch1519]

Dude! I have that book! It's pretty great! Stopped after Napoleon's era. But the Spanish Tercios and were a big appeal even when trying to get them to work in Medieval 2.

[@JarlFrank]

As much as I like Rome 2, I hate how they changed the implementation of shields. Whenever I zoom into the action and see ranged missiles impact with a formation with shields, sometimes soldiers die from being hit *in the shield*. It makes no sense. If a missile hits the shield (and isn't powerful enough to penetrate, like say a musket bullet or maybe crossbow bolt would be) it should do no damage. The old Total Wars went for a more simulationist approach, while the new ones instead abstract it with unit stats like "missile block chance" instead of the more simple and realistic method of having each missile simulated, and the size of the shield affecting its hitbox.

[@JarlFrank]

Oh yeah I think they even changed forests to just give a certain missile block chance rather than each missile individually either hitting or going past a tree. The trees don't have actual hitboxes that can block missiles... but in Rome 1 and Medieval 2 they did.

[@carl-os4603]

@@JarlFrank in Rome 1 shield protecting against arrows with missile block chance too, but its very well balanced so heavily armoured units with large shields basically were immortal to archers in front.

[@JarlFrank]

I think in Rome 2 shields don't fully block the missile damage, instead they act as additional armor against missiles striking them. That's the only way I can explain arrows hitting the shield and killing the soldier.

[@carl-os4603]

@@JarlFrank yes I understand and its shame they have enough resources to as you said implementing more simple and realistic method of having each missile simulated, and the size of the shield affecting its hitbox but they dont... My point was that mechanic in old Total Wars with calculating the chances of actually killing were much more better than modern one.

[@enterwind97]

@@carl-os4603 There's a video explaining how shields work and how armor works in general for Medieval 2 and I assume it's how it works in Rome 1 too. It's not missile block chance, shields don't inherently give you chance to block attacks. Rather they give extra armor points, and a lot of it so it is very noticeable when attacked from the front, that bonus is halved from the flanks and negated from the back. The damage works by comparing the attack stat versus the defense stat, the higher the defense stat the lesser the chance to penetrate and if you only got low missile attack stat might you might as well throw rocks at them. It's just that shields can give you 8 armor for spearmen and generally 6 for melee infantry, that in itself is already the attack value of most bow archers in the game. Combined with attacks that don't penetrate don't damage the soldier that got hit was why shields are effective for absorbing missiles frontally... until they start bringing the crossbows and guns.

[@momoali007]

Remember when total war modding wasn't neutered and modders could do amazing things with the game beyond anything anyone could have foreseen? Yeah good times

[@Pekopekope]

Can't sell DLC if players can make superior alternatives for each other, for free.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

The ability to mod the map needs to be reintroduced. It’s just stupid to limit what people can do with the game and CA is hamstringing modders horribly

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

@@Pekopekope I remember there was a great Viking age mod for Attila’s Charlemagne dlc shortly after it came out and it was really something, quite a good mod. This was back shortly after the dlc came out. Then CA makes ToB and it’s honestly worse than that mod was. It’s sad

[@killinspecialist1965]

@@thinkwithurdipstick modders recently reintroduced the ability to mod the map also ToB was good especially with a few mods to fix the jank

[@rohan0724]

You're just gonna ignore TWW2's moding community and their ability to now create custom models and animations??

[@maxsmotorsports1568]

We should have creativity in our games, and then the developers get inspired by our creativity and then force that creativity on to us, I remember having so much fun in medieval 2 and Rome 1 doing crazy battles and weird battle comps, and now in the new total war games the creativity is at a minimal or when you try too be creative it doesn't allow it/force it. And thats a mood kill Great video 👍

[@rohan0724]

What do you mean? I can't think of a more creative way to fight a battle than throw monsters at the enemy backed up by a dude on a dragon hurling spells and summoning undead infantry too clog the barrels of my enemies missile units.

[@TovKafur]

@@rohan0724 No-one forces you to do so. Sorry, what changed? You still can do crazy stuff, crazy unit compositions. Hell, there is gameplay videos where dude just hired 19 Packmasters (quite weak support characters) in a stack and still managed to make them work with some clever tricks. Stop pretending that CA "forces" you to play right way.

[@mrcombine7983]

Sir the enemy army is routing, we’ve killed most of them! Wait... we forgot to stand in the middle of a forest- oh wait, sir we’re hopeless, then enemy has 12 exhausted archers, they killed 1890 men.

[@victorhand1679]

İ remember faking sicknesses to avoid going to school just to play rome total war. İ fell in love with the game never got bored of it. Having the ability to not only control your arrmies in battels but also making decisions on the campaign map was so cool to me and the amount of control was also amazing every small decision made a big difference. With the new games its all about "press this ability and win the battle" or "hold a full army in place with your hero/single entity units and use there abilitys in time to win battle" there is just no meaningfull decisions you can make that make you feal good at doing them. You do the same thing everytime and its just boring more then anything.

[@oh-not-the-bees7872]

Youre pretty far off. If you llay multiplayer in warhammer, youll realise exactly how overwhelming it is with how much depth there is. Its about using your factions unique strengths and being aware of your opponents weaknesses. To be frank, every single kne of these games is "flank to win." If youre bored, thats your fault for not recognising whats infront of you.

[@gubus2494]

My friend plays total war warhammer 2 on legendary and he doesn't need to use any of that cheese

[@gachilhan]

@@oh-not-the-bees7872 I agree, warhammer is good in that sense that its fucking massive and every faction is hugely different. So if you're bored, that's your own fault. Try doing a troll only run with Throgg, then you'll see just how much you have to think about strategy

[@AverageGamer2024]

Can we just all crowd find a start up company to make a historically accurate and realistic spin of “Total War” style strategy game??

[@Official2Shitty]

There’s good Attila mods

[@ymmiag]

Check out Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sails and Grand Tactician: The Civil War

[@tomzicare]

It seems obvious CA has decided to invest 80% of it's budget for a title into graphical fidelity and artists, 10% into marketing 8% into game mechanics and design philosophy and 2% into actual AI coding. That's how good games have been since Rome II. It's improved graphics but massively stripped features. Why did we go from building forts and watch towers as a staple player interaction with campaign map to absolutely zero features. Rome 1 had them, Medieval 2 had them, Empire only had forts and Napoleon? That's where they completely removed it instead of adding to player interactions on campaign map. Binding soldiers to a general was one of the worst decisions they've made alongside absolutely no customization in how you build up your towns. Boom 5 slots, perhaps 6 and that's it. Why can't we build different tiers of roads anymore? Fuck do I know, they cut that too. Absolutely atrocious streamlining of my favorite franchise. Perhaps to appease new people that were brought in with Warhammer so they'd have an easier time playing a cOmPliCaTed strategy game? It pisses me off how player choice is non existent compared to original titles and it also deeply saddens me because I get bored of new Total War games because variety is not there. The cherry on top was no naval battles in Troy and more importantly no unit formations. That just takes the piss out of it.

[@SuperBadadan]

Warhammer: Total War is an absolutely amazing Warhammer game but a mediocre Total War game.

[@shorewall]

Exactly. I like it a lot, but as its own thing, not as a total war game. Sieges are heartbreaking.

[@21Arrozito]

Never played it, it does look fun sometimes but all the problems mentioned here are obvious when watching battles on youtube. Just like Volund says, it's sub-par Total War gameplay hidden behind monsters, hero units, spells, and flashy animations.

[@FlavBoe]

@@21Arrozito It definately feels more arcade-y if you started off on older TW titles (my first was Medieval 2) After playing through all TW titles to date, the Warhammer series feels 'different.' It's plainly obvious that it's not meant to represent historical warfare. The interesting bit is that it has an entire system of its own, as if the rules of war were rewritten to account for the monstrous units, magic interference, and other fantastical aspects that don't apply to the real world. The factions of Warhammer are incredibly diverse, and competitive multiplayer takes a lot of dedication. Early-on, there's a lot to take in, and the learning curve is steep as hell compared to other titles. And that's not including how varied campaign is depending on the faction. Sieges are shit, though. No sensible TW player will ever defend Warhammer sieges.

[@sandrothenecromancer6810]

It might be the one of the best fantasy warhammer game, but only because of lack of competition since a lot of the lore, fluff and rules were not translated to the game and has a result the combat is far too simple.

[@rohan0724]

@@FlavBoe Just play with GCCM and u get amazing detailed massive seige maps. Takes like 5 seconds to sub to the mods on workshop

[@kotzpenner]

My favourite Battle was rather recently in Shogun 2. I recently acquired a south province, the one with special female Samurai. I didn't intend to hold onto it, expecting a rebellion and my army away so I only had my garrison. A max rebel army spawned and sieged the fortress. I had like 3 Spearmen 2 Swordmen 1 good Swordmen, a few bows and the aforementioned female warriors. The enemy had like 5 times the numbers. I managed to defend the fortress with clever tower usage and wanted to defend like tiers, losing a part and retreating to better terrain until the central final fight. My soldiers fortunately didn't run away, even with 80% losses. Charging a small unit from behind and so on. The final flag at the end I lost about 90% of my army, no joke. I saved the elite Women for last, but they lost about 50% already but still ready to fight. In the end I only had them, a few spearmen and about 2 dozen Samurai. Enemy had still about 3 times the manpower. I managed to make them flee one by one, running around the central building and counter attacking. I wouldnt want to be there for real. They werent exhausted anymore, they were fricking dead. In the end I had a dozen women left, and 2 dozen other units. It was so satisfying. I never wanted to win and just take back the city later. But I was in the mood for a good fight, and oh boy how good it was. 10/10 lol

[@Blex_A]

The biggest change I've noticed over the years has to be with settlement sieges: both offensive and defensive. I remember as a kid playing Rome 1 taking the time to set up siege rams, siege towers, and ladders, picking points on walls that seem the easiest to attack, and then executing that plan. I have so many memories of attacking cities that totally inspired my imagination. The reason I made an army was to siege a city and take it despite the odds. Now, I make armies to take a city--and by that I mean make an army big enough so that I can autoresolve the siege. When I think of playing out a siege in modern total war games, I cringe at the thought of having to deal with towers. The towers seem like an arbitrary dps mechanic that is not fun to play around. Instead of taking time to strategize and find weak points of defense on the walls, you are finding the place where you will take the least amount of tower damage. Every siege becomes the same thing over and over again: find a way to not take tower damage. It's not even rewarding for defense because instead of finding a valuable place to defend, you are just finding a place you can hold that will allow your towers to do more damage to the enemy. I think another problem is that in (from the modern total war games I have played) almost every unit can climb the walls from anywhere. In contrast with Rome 1, you needed to invest time to make ladders-- where you used those ladders would have a big impact to how the siege would play out. A lot of your video is talking about how creating artificial limitations removes player agency from the game; however, in this case removing artificial limitations removed player agency. Why bother waiting to make a siege tower, or a ram, when you can just run in and climb up the walls anywhere you want? In my experience, once you have played one siege in a modern total war game, you have played them all. I'm not the best or most knowledgeable about total war, but that is probably one of my biggest pet peeves when playing. Great, interesting video!

[@authenticbitterleben7434]

I absolutely agree but in my opinion sieges were one of the few things in which Rome 2 could shine. Unlike most other problems the series has, the fun of siege battles only started to dip past Rome 2, maybe even past Attila where defending settlements as a inferior Roman force against barbarians was pretty great. Past Rome/Attila one of the things I noticed first was the length of sieges decreasing. If you pushed the enemy past the first set of walls in medieval you still had to take the next set. If you took the walls in Rome 2, you still had to fight in the streets. In Warhammer as the attacker taking the walls is either all you need to win or completely useless depending on what army composition is used. And most of the times just starving out the settlement is more viable anyway. Fighting As the defender, previously one of the most fun things, holding the walls is now useless as piling up your troops in the town center is the meta. This does neither feel realistic/immersive, nor is it fun compared to the possibilities Rome 2 had like giving up the walls but luring the enemy around the city so they take as much turret damage as possible. In modern total war games you either hold a line or break and lose. It does not feel like a siege it's not very different from cornercamping. Settlements in Warhammer don't look like cities they look as if they were designed as game maps while city in Rome 2 really felt like an actual city. While I don't play Rome 2 anymore I'd still place it miles above anything past it because at least it had good sieges.

[@andrealombardi9434]

@@authenticbitterleben7434 Good points. The siege design is so crap in Warhammer. No 360 degree map, the inner side (streets, Square etc) are so small that creates massive blobs and leave poor freedom of choice. I mean, playing as Bretonnia, a faction based on cavalry, you get the same cities just reskinned and in tight streets you aren't able to use effectively the strongest divisions of your army (apart from Flying units. Most of the times what you need is a doomstack of monsters,but after having fun for 2-3 sieges the whole thing start to be a complete joke that you want to autoresolve. Plus i really fuckin hate that bullshit of pocket ladders, i mean, what the fuck? There are tons of artillery that destroys towers, big units pushing through the gate and then also people that can climbe everywhere they please? As a Defender you can only exploit the AI Buggy mess or camping in the city centre as you said. Luckily they said that they are going to change sieges and with the updates that introduces forts on the map, that simplistic double holding (walls and inner defense, with High-ground centre) is already better

[@buschacha]

I think you've hit the nail on the head in regards to why I don't like clearly defined metas in games. By definition they're the "right" way to play, and to do anything else is just setting yourself up to get bodied in a frustrating and unfun experience if you try to literally anything else.

[@Pilps]

Damm, that thumbnail is gorgeous! Totally caught my eye straight away!

[@jordank1489]

Absolutely nailed it with this series. Beyond the blatantly obvious things, like superman warlords, I couldn't really figure out why a game I loved to play became some mild mannered click fest with fancy animations. It just seems like every "innovation" they've come up with has been a step backwards. My favourite ever experience in Total War was using terrain and defensive tactics to lure the enemy into heavy infantry - you know, like a Roman - and then waiting until cavalry was committed before launching my own small cavalry contingent - you know, like a Roman - to attack their skirmish line and then hammer and anvil their force, buckling one flank of it and then swamping the enemy centre. Now I just send my general out on his own and hit that area with artillery. I started playing EU4 about 2 years ago and haven't picked up total war since.

[@kikijiki7745]

I used to love waiting for their infantry line to clash with mine then "Let slip the dogs of war!" from a hiding place in the forest on them from the rear.

[@Ferretino]

Funly enough in TW Warhammer 2 they made a test version somewhere in 2020 with no supply lines and something strange happend... SKAVENS STARTED PLAYING LIKE HORDE OF ANGRY RATS and the whole fraction balance change completely by simple removing of stupid mechanic that have nearly none lore reasons. Yes few fraction become broken and other mechanics needed to be readjusted, but... That's the exact reason why developer support for the game exist, yes?

[@spiffygonzales5899]

Want to know an even crazier thing that happened? The order tide stopped. Suddenly all factions were possible to win. Even Norsca. I legit won a Norsca campaign... WITHOUT hightailing it to Courone and immediately going for reikland. Also, I doubt this is because of the supply lines, but campaigns seemed WAY more random during that perticular pre update. I even saw V. Coast get to 4th strongest faction. Those were the days.

[@ardentfire3956]

It’s disturbing how people overlooked the fact that pikemen are missing from Warhammer when most Human factions in the setting are renowned for their pike and shot tactics. The famous Tilean pikeman from Warhammer Fantasy are MIA in Total War going on 3 installments now. Maybe they’ll be added in “Immortal Empires” lol 😂 Edit: They weren't. 🤦

[@TheIndesisive]

It's just occured to me that the "compelling players to play a certain way" is exactly the trap the Xcom 2 fell into. They added mission timers to force the player to rush through the levels. You had to play one way and that was as fast as possible or you would just arbitraily lose.

[@andrewgallagher7690]

In all honesty, I had literally zero problem with the mission timers. I didn’t even have to change my strategy from the one I used in Enemy within. And besides, there were mods that removed them, and the devs even created a modifier to double the mission timers.

[@TheIndesisive]

@@andrewgallagher7690 Of course it would be fine for some people yourself included but the trouble is not everyone played that way. I don't agree though that being able to mod the timer away or get double the time are good options to deal with it because that changes the difficulty of the game in the wrong way. There's no counter balance to getting all that extra time, you'd just be making the game easier and so cheapening the experience.

[@ThatDoctor7]

@@antoshq1985 I still play only with double mission timers, but XCOM 2 forcing you to take risks is only a good thing for me. Move-and-overwatch for 30 turns is boring af, and it was simply a necessity to play like that at high difficulties or with Long War.

[@alizard7617]

Prefer modding the classic XCOM. Feels way more believable with the number of operatives sent to deal with technologically superior aliens in the double digits. Four to six guys sent to kill aliens that outnumber you 2:1 past the first quarter of the game is kinda scuffed. I know that aliens only one shot your soldiers if you play full-pants-on-head stupid, play on higher difficulties which arbitrarily raise accuracy and damage, or they get a lucky crit. The modern XCOM’s feel mostly too forgiving in the tactical battles and too harsh in the strategic side. Full squad wipes in classic XCOM are survivable because, not only are high level soldiers less valuable but you probably lined guys up in your barracks to replace casualties. In modern XCOM, a squad wipe anywhere past the mid-game is unsurvivable. Combo the negative strategic effects of a squad wipe with the fact that your B team is likely to only complete missions previously reserved for your, now dead, A team by the skin of their teeth and you have a already failed campaign.

[@lobsterwithhisshouldersbac8368]

Firaxis in general really forces players into set paths. I loved old xcom where you’re bullets actually traveled not just hoping rnGesus would bless you.

[@grandstrategos1144]

I just want to point this out to everyone: Grand Tactician, a game made by a small team, has the option to just up AI aggressiveness and bonuses independently. And the AI is actually competent.

[@rohan0724]

We have radius & if you want a challenge just set campaign to legendary and battle to normal

[@grandstrategos1144]

@@rohan0724 Already done it.

[@saturn12002]

One of the things I loved about medieval 2 and Rome 1 was the population recruitment caps. When you decimate an enemy army, it's actually feels like you decimated an enemy army and struck a powerful blow to the enemy. Modern total war, it's all just spam stacks, you crush two of them in one go entirely, and already they have three more ready to go by the time your replenish your forces.

[@farmerboy916]

Eh, I'm pretty sure medieval 2 didn't have a population system that worked with recruitment, just a separate population system. It did have a limited recruitment per turn slot cap though. And in higher difficulties, it did seem like the AI would invent stacks out of nowhere with no sense of economic cost to them (because while you were trying to build up your empire, they'd just blow all their artificially given gold on ridiculous armies and never improve cities (which then when you conquered were like 5 small towns and a medium castle giving stiff resistance to your late medieval teched up society, and now you have to build this backwater up while defending it). It was real for the player but not for the AI, but not as bad as modern from what I understand. Combined with a diplo system that only has "at war with player" and "about to be at war with player," you're better off never defending or keeping in reserve unless there's a strategically important position that allows you to free up a bunch of troops. Even then, friendly or neutral armies will randomly wander/ sail in and attack your cities in northern France for some reason. Anyway, if you do it right you can conquer most of western Europe by turn 25 without trying by just assuming a constant state of total war and going on a continuous offensive while building something in every settlement every turn.

[@iamwill737]

I remember one time in BI when I traped a barbarian horde between the mountains in the alpes as the Romans. I built a fortress in one exit to Italy and another one in the exit in Germany. It was in one of my first campaigns in that game, and I was getting beaten everywhere, so imagine my excitement when 7 or 8 fully stacked armies could only engage my units in 1 or 2 armies at time. I eventually got beaten, but I will never forget that moment. I have Warhamer and Troy in my library, but for some reason I just get bored easily and then I quit. I don't know why, but it just overwhelms me. I like games with alot of numbers.I love EUIV and CK2 and Victoria II, so I really dont know why I can't play those new TW games.

[@colinsanders9397]

It's because the new games don't let you play. It's just a MOBA style click simulation.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

I dearly miss the ability to construct forts on the campaign map. Such a crucial part of history, especially for the Romans, and it’s just another in a long line of features that has been abandoned for one reason or another

[@Oddant1]

"I've never played Empire or Napoleon but boy do they suck." No they really don't. They're definitely very different from the total war games set in the pre-musket era (because of course they are) but they do what they do very well.

[@gamejunkiee1]

Oddant1 Indeed, I was surprised he didn’t give any argumentation. Napoleon is underrated imo. I understand if people don’t like it because of the setting but the game did many things right. And yeah some of those charges look really awkward because of the shitty engine but melee wasn’t exactly the focus of the game.

[@Fitzgerald934]

In all honesty i played a lot of empire total war when it came out and it was quite fun, though in all honesty, the ai was ridicilously stupid and very often bugged out in hilarious ways or not so hilarious ways when they make the game lag by command spamming but overall it was allright, i disliked how they removed fire by files in napoleon total war and was happy when i had it back with darthmod.

[@CoffeeMaus]

I remember the justified outrage of Empire. It was just as bad as Rome 2 on launch with the exact same core problems as well. The basic consensus from what I understand is the base versions of Rome 2 and Empire was an absolute waste of time, with Napoleon and Attila bringing the game up to what it should have been at launch. Also that's a total misquote, he said he has no will to play them. I don't think he even said anything negative about Empire and in fact even complimented the naval combat.

[@Oddant1]

@@CoffeeMaus he said he could see a trainwreck coming miles away and showed videos of trains derailing while talking about Empire. Funnily enough he did play Rome 2 so I guess he can't see a trainwreck coming. I like this guy's videos and he USUALLY qualifies his opinions even when I don't agree with them. But he never justifies his disdain for Empire or Napoleon. In one video he called Empire "uninspired and boring" when he's never played it. I like Warhammer Total War, but I completely understand why he doesn't. I don't understand his dislike for Empire because I've never heard him justify it because he's never played it.

[@edwardm9246]

Napoleon total war is the only total war I play anymore, albeit with the Darthmod installed.

[@alexbeck8568]

Speaking of player freedom. I was playing Napoleon Total War the other day and, long story short, my army of Danes was left at a depleted unit of line infantry and a single, healthy, unit of cannon. It was a siege and the defenders were in a similar position, in terms of unit strength and numbers. I couldn’t charge in because they had more of their line infantry still standing, so I decided to place my cannon where they could fire through the openings in their dismantled walls - at first I didn’t think it would work, but I was pleasantly surprised to see the head of the dastardly Swedish general being ripped off by cannon shot, all because of a crack in the wall and some good coding. It may not be as experimental as others, but I was proud of that moment. I still lost though :(

[@user-dx6dv9vp3i]

Хорошая аналитика, спасибо Коту за перевод

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

Андрей Тарлавин аналитика очень не очень

[@MalenkiyYoda]

@@user-qx4in2rq1z это почему же? он как раз по делу говорит о проблемах игры и показал это наглядно. даже в случае черепахи в риме 2. разница около 10 лет между играми и почему-то раньше она работала, как надо. а сейчас работает очень плохо. С той же вахой. В вахе тонна упрощений. По сути он прав, что в новых играх нельзя творить. Тебе задают рамки, а не дают инструменты, чтобы ты мог их использовать, как хочешь. В той же трое - накопление цифр. в вахе - накопление цифр. Реально моменты без возможности разделения отрядов бредовые. почему я не могу послать два отряда на защиту города? почему мне обязательно для этого надо нанимать военачальника? Кот был прав в том, что СА может сделать игру, которая понравится людям, если они знакомы с эпохой этой игры. Потому не прижилась атилла. ваха привлекла новых пользователей, которые любят вселенную вархаммер. я вот ее не знаю. так, поверхностно и не понимаю на кампании, что я делаю. а с урезанными возможностями, по сравнению с прошлыми частями - это вызывает вообще отторжение. можно сколько угодно говорить о том, что ваха лучшая в серии и тд и тп. но невооруженным глазом видно, что раньше игру рассчитывали на стратегов, а сейчас уровень вхождения в игру снизили. то есть человеку с норм интеллектом не оч нравятся новые игры серии. потому что просто и скучно. раньше тоже не было прям суппер сложного опыта в игре. но сейчас он еще легче. я вот спецом поиграл в ваху пару кампаний. ну чет вообще не ощущаю. кроме как читерского компа, который мне посылает фул стеки один за одним. тут дело только во времени. я их все-равно разобью. игра меня вынуждает забросить ибо постоянно повторяется одно и то же. одно и тоже и ничего нового. даже в риме, который особо не тяжелый, было несколько кампаний, где реально нужно было попотеть. понятное дело, что с определенными вызовами. в вахе таких не заметил. мне товарищ за деда в вахе посоветовал поиграть. нежить которая. говорит поживи 200 ходов и не трогай гномов. а потом постарайся их победить. типа тяжело будет. ну блин. 200 ходов ждать хардкора? серьезно?

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

Богдан Щербина О,какие люди пожаловали! Черепаху отрицать не буду,тут разрабы реально лохонулись,также как и с флагами.А с Вахой я уже в миллионный раз говорю-все упрощения(если таковые есть,так как их часто просто из головы берут) перекрываются нововведениями.Единственное правдивое утверждение,это про разделение армий.Про Кота могу согласиться,он гораздо меньше бреда несёт в своих роликах(хотя есть,к чему прикопаться).Ну и аргументы в стиле ,,Я не заметил'' и ,,МНЕ не понравилось'' не принимаются. Итак,начнём: 1.Я конечно тебе про дальние бои уже сказал,но походу придётся ещё.Ну,нашёл ты один бугорок,через который стреляют мушкетеры,дальше что?Ты просто раздуваешь из мухи слона,собственно ничего удивительного. 2.А дальше мы удивляемся,какого хрена стрелки плохо работают против юнитов с РОСТОВЫМИ ЖЕЛЕЗНЫМИ щитами,приводя в пример,как аркибузёры косят голых асигару без щитов во фланг.За такое можно только похлопать.Да и аналогом аркибузёров в Вахе являются Ратлинги у скавенов.Тут тебе и узкая направленность(только против крупных скоплений юнитов),и большая зависимость от местности,и дикий урон. 3.Про боевые модификаторы хочу сказать,что они просто не приятные.Но они во первых,не стираю возможность использовать пехоту,так как ИИ в Вахе не научился нормально прокапчивать технологии и отряды за счёт полководцев,из-за чего можно его нагнать путём правильной прокачки.Так что никакие думстеки не нужны,они дегенеративные и используются только теми,кто не хочет думать,но ведь есть возможность играть нормально и без них?Есть,ещё как. 4.А вот про деление ты сильно преувеличиваешь.Очень сильно.За тех же гномов или тёмных эльфов не проблема нанять дополнительные 1-2 армии,сделать ими то,что хочешь и распустить.У Бретонии за это вообще штрафа нет,что добавило ей уникальности. 5.Про юнитов с разноцветными шкурками это только к исторической части.В Вахе такого нет(просто напоминаю).А насчёт дальнего оружия,то действительно луки и арбалеты одинаковы,но вот пращи нет.У них нет такой большой навесной дуги. 6.На счёт того,что мы выбираем одни типы юнитов и ими играем.На всякий случай напомню,что в Вахе каждый ЛЛ специализируется на своих войсках,так что нет. 7.Теперь к юнитам в Сёгуне.В этом плане Ваха как раз на сто голов выше,так как там этих юнитов в разы больше,в значит и думать за каждую фракцию,как с ними расправляться надо каждый раз по новой.В Сёгуне же ты можешь придумывать просто каждый раз всё более изощрённый способ,то есть не ахти. 8.И опять таки ты можешь играть как ты хочешь.Хочешь,набираешь за скавенов 3 стека рабов и один пушек(при мизерной стоимости первых это не проблема).А хочешь чтоб твои гоблины не огребали?Выбираешь Грома и качаешь их до терминаторов. 9.Что-то имеешь против монстров и взрывов? 10.А вот насчёт этой ,,мудрой'' аудитории.Ощущение,что СА реально хочет убрать эту аидиторию,так как она мешает вводить новые инновационные механики(как например в Ваху).И эта аудитория с синдромом Медивла хотят просто каждые 5 лет переиздавать Медь,так как любая новая механика рушит их идеальную картину Тотал Вара.Так что уж лучше непуганая аудитория,чем такая. 11.Обновлено: Через весь ролик также прослеживается мысль,типа ,,Я вот значиться играл в Тотал Вар ради личного преодоления трудностей,но они это убрали(очень хорошо заменив),так что теперь Тотал Вар автоматически говно''.Эм,ну как сказать...Всё же СА не должны делать игры ИСКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНО под тебя и небольшую аудиторию,которая также этого просит,верно? 12.Обновлено 2: И если захочешь сказать,мол:,,Я вот хочу,чтоб моя тактика приносила максимально пользу'',то я скажу.Спямь асигарками.Это я к тому,что в любой(ну или почти) Тотал Вар можно найти тактику,выносящую ИИ под чистую.Это так,то,что Волонду написал.:) Ну и если ничего из сказанного тебя не убедило,то вот что:Ваха не стала хуже,она просто изменилась,.Переделалась,если так сказать можно.

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

Богдан Щербина Добавлю:Если хочешь челленджа в Вахе,просто сыграй Клан Риктус без юнитов великих кланов:)

[@MalenkiyYoda]

​@@user-qx4in2rq1z 1. ну да. там от силы пару карт с неровным рельефом. поэтому мб и справедливо. 2. на самом деле надо было отказываться от хпшного урона. а делать, как раньше. типа меткость и все дела. а то юниты имеют свои хп. не дохнут от снаряда пушки. Герои вообще получает в лицо 1000 стрел и бегут, как ни в чем не бывало. танк бодается... и тд и тп. здесь по сути был один из примеров. а так это халтура 3. Ну как сказать. опять же вопрос про ИИ. почему не улучшают? И почему я не могу нанять топ армию неубиваемую, если могу?)) Ну здесь тоже косяк разрабов на самом то деле. видел, как 20 паладинов выносят всё живое. такое себе. 20 человек выносят армию элиты с монстрами. мде... это огромный косяк. 4. Дак армии это понятно. А почему нельзя сделать откреплении двух отрядов? допустим завести их в тыл. чтобы сразу от туда начали сражение? или вот у тебя войско в походе. ты видишь, что противник хочет осадить твой замок и хочет высадить там стек. я хочу отправить туда пару отрядов и уверен, что они сдержат противника вместе с гарнизоном. а остальным войском я буду следовать дальше. Но нет. мне нужно нанимать лорда, вести его к своей армии или армию к нему. и делить войска. в итоге я трачу время и моя кампания тормозит, потому что что? потому что даунская система. 5. Ой да ладно. в вахе тоже этого полно. драконы все одинаковы и перекрашены. эльфы с двуручниками одинаковы. с мечами одинаковы. с копьями одинаковы. колесницы одинаковы. кавалерия одинакова. птицы одинаковы. собаки одинаковы. гобла с гномами некоторыми одинакова. у них даже анимации одинаковы. бретония и империя одинаковы. нежить одинакова. у вампиратов у средних монстров анимашки, как у зверолюдов или хаоса. на скелет натянули модельку другую. лучники перекрашены. новый длс приносит так же одинаковых юнитов за исключением нескольких. разнообразие не так велико. 6. Ну и что тебе мешает за того же алит анара нанять драконов и сильную пехоту? пару лучников и мяко какое нить? а ничего. что тебе мешает играть через пехоту и каву, играя за фолькамара? а ничего. не обязательно ведь флагелянтов нанимать? ну да, есть какой нить скарсник, там никуда не денешься. у эльфов че там? дуртху разве не может в бой вести лучников? или себе внушить только бревна нанимать? 7. Ну знаешь. в Сегуне каждый юнит имеет способности. самураи по крайней мере. есть построения. а в вахе отличия юнитов только в циферках и перекрашенной моделью. нет ни построений, ничего. просто по статам выше, ну и мб бонус против чего-то есть. все в циферках. в сегуне конечно все юниты одинаковы в силу эпохи, нет дракончиков, троллей и тд. Но играть даже за одинаковых юнитов приятно. знаешь почему? ты на анимации посмотри? как они раненые страдают. как они сражаются. юнит не выдерживает 10 стрел в лицо. там даже камера трясется при натиске и это круто смотреть. я вот согласен с автором, ведь с меньшим количеством воинов, ты мог реально одержать победу, благодаря своей смекалке. ну ка одержи в вахе победу, когда ЛЛ нападет с фул стеком, а у тебя гарнизон? было у меня такое. я перебил всю армию ЛЛ, а он добил моих оставшихся воинов ибо по нем урон не заходил вообще. удивительно. далее эта тенденция перенеслась вот в троецарствие и трою. бежит ахилес. в него 100 стрел влетело, а ему пофигу. в той же меди генерал мог в начале боя здохнуть. 8. Ну все не до такой ведь степени, верно же? хочется, чтобы креативы обращали больше внимания самому геймплею. давали больше инструментов для игры, а не заставляли играть каким либо образом. а сейчас они это делают. виноваты эти все механики. Это реально сковывает действия. Вот яркий пример с флотом был показан. Есть ли такое в вахе? нет. там по сути твой ЛЛ может вынести всю армию. зачем думать? качнул до 30 лвл. шмотки одел и вперед. блин. да я на конном лорде истребил 500 юнитов чарджами. интересно... ппц просто.

[@ioannisschoinopoulos1359]

I won't lie, ETW is a buggy game with a fair amount of issues, but i always enjoyed it, I have no problems watching or playing a battle of ETW, but whenever i sit down to watch or play modern total war games, I just can't. They feel flaccid, they feel boring with nothing interesting going on, I've only managed to watch a warhammer II battle to the end ONCE.

[@yugatrasclart4439]

Empire was ambitious af, god if only the AI wasn't abhorent

[@fourthdown1231]

Volound is right about most of the things he says, but he should 100% give ETW a try. It is buggy (can be fixed with a mod like Darthmod), but the game is still lots of fun and introduces many elements (the naval battles, worldmap being so expansive, etc.) that some of the other games don't have. Of course it is not objectively the best Total War game, but it is my most played in the series behind Shogun 2. I agree that the new games fall flat completely compared to the old games.

[@yugatrasclart4439]

@@fourthdown1231 Darthmod adds more bugs than it fixes in my experience

[@johanmikkael6903]

@@yugatrasclart4439 adding more faction leads to more bugs

[@barnsleyman32]

it's only fun on the campaign map taking the caribbean for trade resources and stuff, the battles are genuinely the worst in the franchise, absolutely awful

[@MONOMAHSTUDIO]

I'm from Russia and I really liked your video, I realized that I didn't lose anything by playing only fall of the samurai and shogun 2. I Would also like to note that the graphics in these games are many times better than the graphics in other total wars, and this is especially Noticeable. I would like to see a video on the topic of comparing the fall of the samurai and the second shogun, as well as evaluating AI in all games of total wars. I hope that the translator translated my words more or less accurately and legibly.

[@Sharnoy1]

It makes me sad to think we will never see games such as Rome 1, Medieval 2 or Shogun 2 again :,( The new TWs are multiplier click fests with no immersion or meaningful tactics. They make me sick.

[@shorewall]

I pray for some indie company to make it happen again.

[@kingmarre9130]

I have played since Med 2 and you are so fucking wrong dude

[@BlingLingification]

Volound uses Shogun 2 as an example of meaningful unit diversity, and he uses the fact that Yari Ashigaru, an early game unit, are still relevant into the late game as the specific example. However, I would argue that Yari Ashigaru illustrates how unit diversity, especially the yari units, is not meaningful at all in Shogun 2. Essentially, any yari unit that cannot use Yari wall is automatically less cost effective as Yari wall actually allows Yari Ashigaru to handily beat or competently hold back yari and some katana units a tier or two above it, such as Yari Samurai (this is also why Yari Ashigaru, in terms of cost effectiveness, is one of the best units in the game). The effectiveness of the Yari Wall also diminishes the value of non-Yari units (except bows/guns and calvary). Having a Yari Ashigaru frontline late game is actually a component of an optimal stack, and one would have to dedicate extra effort and revenue into incorporating other yari and katana units into one's army without necessarily a reasonable increase in success. I wished he delved more into unit diversity in Rome 1, as I think the unit diversity within each faction and the added unit diversity from region-specific mercenary pools are a better illustration of meaningful unit diversity.

[@jaspervanheycop9722]

I'll die on this hill but Yari Samurai have a very specific niche that if played to well can make them shine: they are far better cav counters than Yari Ashigaru walls (unless you play against AI, of course). They can use their great speed to countercharge cavalry and shore up flanks. Meanwhile sluggish spearwalls can't do jack against cavalry unless your opponent is a brainlet. Also Katana Sam will dice up Yari Walls unless you charge them from the front, which is kind of how that engagement is supposed to go.

[@Volound]

@@jaspervanheycop9722 high level shogun 2 playing involves using morale and charge bonus, which is what samurai have over ashigaru, by design. sitting on a hill in yari wall is 2012 tactics and can only get you so far, as you described well in response. even though yari samurai are arguably bugged (it looks like they shouldve eventually had spear square, there is evidence of this), they still fill their intended role with their unique properties. OP should watch "snowy peaks". link in the description.

[@BlingLingification]

@@Volound I am more than willing to make the concession that the unit diversity plays a greater role in Shogun 2 MP, as there are actual restrictions to what units one can bring in a MP match (due to a money limit, if not also restrictions that the players agree on). Also, people are smarter than AI. However, I was under the impression that your analysis was emphasizing the SP experience rather than the MP (hence your previous mention of death stacks and how they are a sign of meaningless unit diversity, where death stacks are only applicable to SP). As Jasper said, yari wall and the aforementioned 2012 tactics can essentially carry you through any campaign against the AI, which is what SP is about. Edit: I watched the snowy peaks video. You said so yourself in the Snowy Peaks video at 2:39: "I would not recommend doing this again, having Yari Samurai in fort defenses." Did you win using high level tactics? Yes. Did those high level tactics work because you played to the strengths of the Yari Samurai by utilizing more of the map (mobility, charge, morale, and armor), specifically the elevation on the snowy peaks and by pulling the masses of katana samurai apart? Yes. Were you forced to resort to high level tactics because the Yari Samurai core created a tactically unfavorable situation? Unfortunately, yes. I think one could easily argue that introducing more diversity into army stacks will push people to use higher level tactics, and to use more of the mechanics inherent to the game. I would argue that this diversity most often occurs in MP matches, compared to SP matches in most TW games. I would also argue that the battle wouldn't have been sent in if the sender had utilized a core consisting more of yari ashigaru and some katana samurai in his fort defense army instead of yari samurai, which by all counts would have been cheaper than the army he had in the fort. In other words, the snowy peaks video is actually a great example of how unit diversity (re: Yari samurai) severely disadvantaged a player and turned a fort battle into a very difficult battle in SP.

[@Volound]

@@BlingLingification yeah im only talking about SP. yari wall is 2012 tactics. watch my impossible battles series. SP isnt a challenge unless you make one for yourself. thats true in total war and thats true in any game.

[@BlingLingification]

@@jaspervanheycop9722 I understand your argument for how Yari Samurai have a specific niche that they play very well. Unfortunately, as you know, the AI in SP will relentlessly punish you for ever including Yari Samurai in your army in hopes of utilizing this specific niche. And more often than not, the AI will also charge their katana Sam headlong into Yari walls. I haven't played much MP, but I would not be surprised if Yari ashigaru ended up forming a minor portion of my army, with more elements being devoted to more maneuverable units, because most people, I imagine, are not brainlets.

[@Justin-ShalaJC]

We need to make sure CA watches this, we need the next "saga" to be re imagined Edit for clarity: I would prefer a new studio to take a shot at the TW style tactical experience

[@Justin-ShalaJC]

@Based & Redpilled Department I agree with you for the most part. I think CA has lost the plot. I would LOVE to see a new studio or kickstarter thats been pushing CRPGs back into the mainstream. Telling CA that a 3rd of their customers are moving onto a better TW style tactical experience. You think CA isnt failing?

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

@Based & Redpilled Department i feel like Warhammer’s success can be more attributed to the IP itself and the hype surrounding that rather than people buying it for the mechanics and gameplay. It was serviceable enough to provide a decent playing experience, especially for those who hadn’t played previous installments, but the age of these mechanics is showing.

[@95onimusha]

@@thinkwithurdipstick there are honestly a lot of people that love warhammer gameplay. the majority of people prefer an arcade style

[@enterwind97]

CA banned him on their reddit, what makes you think they will consider this video at all?

[@darthwalrus4740]

@@enterwind97 Judging by some of his replies here, I can see why he was banned lol. I agree with the video though.

[@captainnemo7708]

The fragment about the change between the two DOOM games was very interested and eye-opening. I always found it difficult to pinpoint the explanation as to why Eternal falls short of providing the same feelings and entertainment to me. Thanks you for providing this, not sure I would have heard about clockner if not for this vid.

[@Garakh]

Yeah, I had the same revelation about Doom Eternal vs Doom 2016. I felt so funneled and constrained in Doom Eternal that I just refunded the game at almost the 2 hour mark. I was so hyped for it. Seems many ppl who didn't like it had trouble explaining to ppl who liked it exactly what bothered them. But I feel like the snippet in this video nailed it down well.

[@user-rp1pu6mt3d]

Печально все это, оптимизм внушают думающие игроки как вы, способные имея аудиторию доносить рациональное зерно в головы разработчиков и новых поколений геймеров. В обсуждении механик игры можно увязнуть. Что то нравится одним, что то другим, а кто то вносит изменения которые ненавистны фанатам в целом. Тут главное добросовестно отработать новые идеи и не губить старые наработки. Происходящее с серией можно было бы описать, как объективный процесс, лишенный и заговора и злого умысла что бы пожертвовать свободой игрока. Неужели разработчики не понимают того что понимает автор ролика? Наверняка понимают. Понятно что если обобщать это погоня за прибылью, но даже эта погоня может и должна носить более созидательный характер. А мы по факту видим разрушение бренда. Студия подстраивается под молодежь, под новые рынки, на примере арены и арены 2 даже формат игры меняется, но глупо терять бренд, проверенную временем концепцию, со своим духом и реалистичностью, отрабатывая посторонние (проходные) механики (флаг на поле боя которые мы видим в арене на постоянной основе, да ещё возможность пополнять и даже воскрешать отряды). Тебе как буд то вместо своеобразной реконструкции, истории, архитектуры и просто элементарной логики, чего то серьезного и добротного подсовывают порнопародию. Иногда посмотришь какие фильмы получаются у метров прошлого и не удивляешься деградации в производстве игр. Добра Вам Volound! Спасибо за перевод CAT!

[@duminexen9765]

Выглядит как "Раньши было лучши", особенно после части про старые фильмы и деградацию в производстве игр. Ну и докопаться до арены, которая направлена только на достижение прибыли и на основании этого делать выводы, при этом совершенно забив на современные основные тотал вары - гениально. Ну и да, истории в тотал варах никогда не было, игры серии тотал вар как раз и являются порнофанфиками к реальной истории, не более.

[@IPSCLAIM]

Да, игры превратились в аркадное дерьмо для казуальщиков, которые даже не способны мыслить на базовом уровне своего развития и готовы лишь платить за победу при любом раскладе. Сразу же вспоминается фильм Идиократия...

[@user-rp1pu6mt3d]

@@duminexen9765 вы мне льстите. "Гениальность" это подменять логику шаблонами и идиомами. Вот ваш ник "Выглядит как" имя некой исторической личности, разве можно делать вывод что вы и есть тот человек? Глупость. Бренд "тотальной войны" разрывают на самостоятельные проекты, и Арена лишь показатель такого "развития". Арена это не "Total War", но даже там свободой жертвуют в пользу не условности, а тотального упрощения вплоть до глупости. Если вы не понимаете описанного Voloundом упадка это не значит что его нет. Зачем вы перевираете? Я говорил об упрощении серии Тота Вар как пародии на позитивные наработки. И "Раньше" ни все было лучше, но глобально сохранялся пиетет к реалистичности. Хотя были и провалы. И что это за "современные основные тотал вары" ? Ключевыми в них всегда являются исторические серии, и именно о них шла речь, все остальное маркетинговая эксплуатация имени (Вархамеры и пр. фэнтези-мифы.). Это игра и бессмысленно сравнивать её на весах с историей. Но для своего уровня есть исторические битвы например. Конечно есть определенная условность в угоду игровому балансу и в ущерб правдоподобности. Но и историческая реконструкция это не история, и уж тем более шахматы как эталон предельно абстрактной и условной, исторической батальной игры. Не дергайте слова в произвольном порядке, не искажайте смысл, не вырывайте контекст. Мой комментарий - не разбор серии "Total War", ни критика, а скорее отзыв, отклик на просмотренное видео и попутные мысли. Он не претендует на глубокое раскрытие темы и безупречность, потому ваши ужимки мимо. Жаль что вы сами ни чего не нашлись сказать в комментариях, хотя бы поблагодарить автора ролика.

[@p_serdiuk]

@@duminexen9765 Сейчас корону игр, где возможно увидеть непредсказуемые и редкие взаимодействия игровых механик, которые происходят благодоря качественному подходу к симуляции игрового мира и его объектов, можно увидеть в таких играх, как Rimworld, Oxygen Not Included, Factorio, Minecraft, Kerbal Space Program, и других подобного жанра "околосимуляций". Ранние игры Total War имели похожий подход, они симулировали объекты и экипировку на поле боя и давали событиям развернуться как получится. Сейчас же TW сменил подход на таковой больше похожий на Starcraft 2 или Dota 2, где графика и представление игрового мира отходит на второй план перед голой игромеханикой, но при этом из-за масштабов игры (SC2 управляет единицами, TW управляет отрядами) и сеттинга (SC2 это лайтовая фантастика, TW историчен) для разработчиков невозможно построить систему игровых механик, настолько же сложную и глубокую, как в SC2 или Dota 2. Из-за этой смены подхода TW и деградировал.

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

FROZENCHROME игры Тотал Вар стали разнообразнее,реиграбельнее и красивее.И где нашли аркадность?

[@doellison]

This applies to about every game where a meta or playstyle is forced. Developers are punishing intelligence, creativity, and standout players.

[@sarrumac]

Yup just look at hearts of iron 4.

[@doellison]

@Tattle Boad Dev balancing decisions drives metas in most game, especially competitive ones

[@shorewall]

@Tattle Boad Yeah, but devs are unbalancing the game when they try to force a certain style. Competitive players will always try to cheese the game. Devs just need to focus on building a good base game. Don't worry about what competitive players will do. And especially don't get twisted ideas about encouraging or discouraging certain styles of play. Like you said, the players will always find a way, so you can't beat them, except at the cost of dumbing down the game.

[@NaCk210]

After re-reading the Iliad one thing I can say is: It's so insultingly boring that the way a god manifests their favor in this game is through a sad, flaccid, intangible bonus to some stat. I'm not saying it needs to go all age of mythology (although it would have been very cool and they definetly should have gone all age of mythology) but holy fuck, you have this opportunity of introducing fun gameplay mechanics and all you can think of is stat bonuses? I don't even blame the B team they used for Troy, this is CA's mainline design at work. Those guys are doing at least a decent job with the type of design guidelines and tools given to them by the main development team. It's very polished too, and it's presentation is impeccable. It's such a shame all that effort is brought down by boring, weightless game design.

[@migueeeelet]

"you have this opportunity of introducing fun gameplay mechanics and all you can think of is stat bonuses?" Can we highlight this? If a new Total War game is only going to be a reskin of literally everything else... then what the hell are the devs doing?

[@justsomegamer6719]

I guess we know why they went EGS in the first place.

[@hallamhal]

I found my Manual for Shogun Total War - Gold Edition the other day. 120 pages of backstory, tactics, strategy, philosophy and economics - plus information that isn't in the games about the different clans' motivations, strengths and weaknesses - It was incredible how a game primitive by comparison to what we have today had so much passion in it to encourage lateral thinking from the player. It was clear the developers were strategy nerds doing what they loved, who had studied and applied the Sun Tzu they liberally quote in loading screens to this day! The potential in that one manual, the anticipation for future games when the technology caught up with the single minded vision of the game! And Rome and Medieval 2 nearly got there. I could enjoy Empire, I was impressed by Shogun 2 - My interest has been eroded with every release since, but still I live in hope that a Total War game will capture a new player's imagination in the same way that Shogun did for me in 2000.

[@BunkerFox]

Remember going into the throne room in Shogun 1 and just clicking on the old advisor? I used to love doing that and listening to him quote Sun Tzu

[@williamballangarry2995]

I love Empire. Not my favourite Total War, but Steam claims I’ve put more hours into Empire than any other. Why? For the same reason people love most Total War’s: what I do and how I play it is entirely up to me. I have the freedom to do whatever and the game can be played from beginning to end with that mindset.

[@shorewall]

I watched a video that was graphing the Total Wars by playerbase over time, and Empire held the top spot for a surprising length of time, even after other games came out. :D

[@Kaiser282]

Honestly, I think modifiers is why I started playing Paradox games over total war. If I'm going to play a game based on modifiers, I might as well play one where the gameplay was originally built around it. It just hurts to think what Total War used to be. And until some indie company comes and picks up the ashes, its just going to keep being lukewarm. Warhammer and Total War should have been an apex. Not a rotten tomato. Even the old warhammer fantasy tabletop game was more akin to a standard Total War than the bs that came from it. One final complaint: spearmen and spearmen with shields. Do I need to even say how absolutely garbage that is? There's not some 'oh the spearmen without shields are better vs. Monsters or longer spears' or something. It's just a small increase in 'melee attack' and total weakness against ranged weapons (not that shields protect to much anyways anymore) and ever so slightly cheaper. You could argue 'but Hastati and Principe were the same' but that's a lie. Hastati were significantly cheaper and less armored than their Principe brothers, less staying power and should be. And if you weren't trying to roleplay a legitimate Roman army (which is fun) you could use them as good flankers because they were faster and didn't hold as well. It was also a big jump in power to go from t1 hastati to t2 Principe and you felt it. T1 spearmen and t2 spearmen with shields, there is no jump. Just shields.

[@ivansh2006]

Total war cat сделал русские субтитры со своими друзьями. Выразим ему благодарность за это.

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

Bloodynoob ох,лучше бы не делал.

[@ivansh2006]

@= = total war cat говорил, что его англоязычный друг сделал крутое видео, и что я (cat) с друзьями сделал субтитры, чтобы вы могли его посмотреть

[@Repeater12323]

It's crazy to me that I'm only just discovering your channel, yet I reached almost the exact same conclusion as you about modern total war and that Shogun 2 was the peak of the series.

[@gabbo7101]

I remember in the warhammer mod for med2, I was playing as the night goblins and the dwarfs I was fighting outnumbered me, out gunned me, and I was completely outmatched, but I managed to use clever positioning and using the mountain the fight took place at to make up for my odds and shoot the dwarfs from the mountain ridge, while harassing them from below. I managed to make a losing situation into a winning battle through clever planning and positioning. Shit like this is why og total war is so great.

[@roys.1889]

This and the rest of your essay-playlist are probably the most comprehensive breakdowns of the Total War series out there and far be it for me just some fuck whose been playing since Rome 1, you could practically use all of these vids as a guide on how to design an RTT game from the ground up.

[@fyrehawke]

Holy shit, Cosmic going on that long rant about flags was just pure gold!

[@anthonypham8130]

Naval artillery in Rome 2 and attila really break the immersion in the game for me. How is a catapult in the middle of the ocean rocking back and forth supposed to hit another ship and sink it in just 3 hits? You're absolutely forced to use these ships because they're so effective and deny your enemy the chance to get close. Shogun 2 has its own problems with the naval ai being broken and bow kobaya fire arrow spam, but at least maneuvering your ships mattered much more in that game. You could separate your fleet and bait enemies around islands to create local superiority and pick off enemies one by one, eventually defeating a superior fleet (and snagging some ships in the process). I really wish they iterated in what they had in shogun 2 naval battles. Some things were wrong, but it still had elements of player freedom in it. It really pains me that naval battles were removed entirely because some of the coolest moments I had in total war was in watching ships burn and watching my men fight on the decks of their ships.

[@xanthos9110]

TBF it isnt CA's fault about the naval battles, Games Workshop didnt give them the rights to it, so by law, they literally couldnt implement naval battles.

[@MrAsh1100]

@@xanthos9110 That one....is.....a weird one....cos I remember GW didn't said anything, according to ome ytber when he was discussing about Naval combat in TW as a whole. Apparently, GW didn't say anything and there were plans to put in naval units but the best guess was CA ran out of time.

[@PerennialSash]

This kind of commentary is really refreshing.

[@andreyfisher7068]

@@thegreatrainman2336 how so?

[@thejourney2point0]

A testudo in game providing the sort of defense against ranged fire like it did historically is cheese? Wtf lmao Also a testudo in Rome 1 isn't impenetrable from all sides, the read of the formation is a weak point lol

[@hanzkidz]

@@thegreatrainman2336 "if a game is designed to be difficult and challenging ppl would not play it" --> I really don't like this attitude since it implies that gamers don't want to have any meaningful challenge in their games and prefer to have everything handed to them on a silver platter. It's not about making the game difficult in a dumb way like forcing you to fight 20 doomstacks every turn, it's about creating a challenge that's interesting to play against using the tools given. Even if you consider it cheese, I find the fact that you can dodge enemy attacks in Dishonored by physically ducking their strikes just like a real fight is very compelling.

[@thejourney2point0]

@@thegreatrainman2336 What tf are you even on about? How are testudos in Rome 1 cheese? They have strengths and weaknesses and the game treats them sensibly. You're so incoherent im not even sure if you are saying the testudo in game is too weak or too strong

[@thejourney2point0]

@@thegreatrainman2336 you think positioning is cheese?

[@misanthropicservitorofmars2116]

The guy ramming ships in Empire was amazing. Never seen anything like that in Total War. Absolutely incredible.

[@jonathonrodriguezthomas6457]

It was amazing how you were able to use a small part of a game like that, making the enemy strike where you wanted them to and then capitalizing on that, I must also congratulate the Napoleon clip I have been watching that game for years now and seeing that clip done so elegantly just blew my mind never before have I seen such a battle at sea where an overwhelming defeat is so prominent be switched into a victory with only the loss of a few ships, I tip my hat to the both of you.

[@constantinexi6489]

I remember positioning my captains unit in such a way that the captain would be behind a rock and not get run down by cavalry on the first charge back in Medieval II

[@andrewbush2133]

Does CA watch these videos, there's so many people that agree with you! I agree on like everything. The Total series is over for me I haven't bought a Total war game since warhammer. I plan to not purchase anymore .

[@Grondorn]

I've played the Total War series basically since Rome Total War, only skipping a few titles in between. Now, I am a massive Warhammer fan and this is the game I've spent more time with than even Rome and Medieval 2 (games which I adored), even though, as you have clearly demonstrated, the earlier games are vastly superior in general game mechanics. Still, with its interesting fantasy lore, RPG elements, and a wide variety of fascinating factions, Warhammer is still the game I prefer (I'm not sure had I ever completed a Rome or Medieval 2 campaign, since at later stages you become much too powerful and the campaign less interesting, while in Warhammer I finished several), and I think this is where the problem lies. Older historical titles needed a well-crafted game mechanics to stand out and achieve commercial success. Warhammer doesn't need that and players will wilfully ignore such obvious design bullshit choices because the game is still much too appealing. This doesn't bode well for potential future CA titles which might never place emphasis on core game mechanics as the older titles.

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

Indeed what happens once the Warhammer licence ends and the third game is made.

[@shorewall]

I like Rome 1, Med 2, and Warhammer 2. But Warhammer 2 feels like a different game series. It has Single Entities, it has magic, it has machine guns. I guess I was able to accept all of the design changes, more or less, because it doesn't feel like a Total War Game. I can't get into the historical titles with the new style. 3 Kingdoms, Troy, Rome 2, I just can't. Warhammer gets a pass because it is so different, but when it comes to historical, I know what I have played, in Rome 1 and Med 2. I know what I want.

[@Grondorn]

@@shorewall Yes, this comment nails the crux of the problem. There is really no reason for historical Total War games to copy anything from Warhammer.

[@tiggerbane4325]

@@shorewall Poor elephants being forgotten.

[@shorewall]

@@tiggerbane4325 I always wanted to play with Elephants in the older games, but they come so late, and are so expensive, that you basically have to be stomping in order to recruit them. :D Also, even they aren't single entity. And my bigger issue is with Lords and Heroes taking on armies by themselves. In Warhammer FANTASY, it makes sense, but in any historical title, it makes me sick.

[@zapy9715]

This could be my American Revolutionary sentiment and coming of age nostalgia talking but I do love Empire total war to a fault and it remains my favorite game in the series. I recognize that Rome 1 was the better game. I have recently picked it back up and I still love it. The Darthmod fixed most of my complaints with the game and I understand you don't want to go near it. I will wish there was a game that was quite similar and handled that time period's campaign and battle strategies just as well as it does.

[@TalonAshlar]

I miss the direct fire from early total war games. I once held off over 300 Prussian light infantry with a single militia unit perfectly positioned behind the crest of a hill. 300 shots scored only 4 kills whereas my return volley of 60 shots killed 2. When the other player grew frustrated and charged his guards to fire point blank i had the militia counter charge into them causing the light infantry to inflict friendly fire on their own guards, as the enemy reloaded I unleashed my cavalry. I still remember zooming in and seeing the Prussian army dissolve into a confused mass rout of troops pursued by the militia who scored over 200 kills and saved my entire flank.

[@Bingbangboompowwham]

Subscribed. Not because my feelings about the TW franchise are anywhere near as strong as yours, but because you are so passionately pissed that you create hours and hours of content. I really admire your vitriol lol

[@pyrascheme]

Part of the reason I loved Napoleon Battles, but there was almost no room for player creativity/roleplay. When you brought up Dishonored I just remember how GOOD that game made you feel like in the role of an assassin. The people feared you even though they were ALREADY swamped in horrible disease, corruption, and cannibal witches

[@Lorgar64]

The flag battle reminded me of that robot chicken stratego sketch. "We're creaming you guys out here!" "Yeah, but we got your flag! That means we win!"

[@Acciyn]

Interesting point of view on why they switched to "general only" armies. I was under the impression they did that because they were unable to squash the infinite movement bug they introduced in Empire. Now I'm wondering if that even contributed to the change or if it was merely a convenient bonus

[@b1indmailman]

I doubt that bug was what forced them to general armies. One of the big issues that no one has been able to fix in Empire is the Ottoman Empire specifically mass producing single units which slowed down the turns to like 20 minutes per. Its still present to a lesser degree in Napoleon but it was a major problem that like most things instead of trying to fix it CA just removed entirely.

[@Acciyn]

@@b1indmailman Interesting. I don't remember seeing that myself when I played Empire, though admittedly that was several years ago at this point. Wonder why they just didn't code the AI with something like "If (number of armies) exceeds (number of owned provinces(minimum 3)) then attempt to merge armies close to each other." Wouldn't be a perfect fix, but it would at least make the AI less likely to make single unit armies

[@b1indmailman]

@@Acciyn why fix something when you can remove it entirely

[@earvindinoso7689]

@@b1indmailman wasn't there a "Show CPU moves" option in Empire? I remember M2TW and possibly Shogun 2 having those options. You can just disable them so the turn times will be quicker.

[@thinkwithurdipstick]

@@earvindinoso7689 you can still do that I think, you just have to push the fast forward button and have the settings right

[@JarthenGreenmeadow]

I once routed 10 infantry units with 1 unit of spearmen and 2 unit of Longbows (in medieval 2) There is nothing that could describe how winning a battle like that makes you feel. This was in Medieval 2 back in like...2010. I still think about that battle. I would hide the longbows and ambush them over and over. I had to zoom down under the trees to make sure the longbows had good lines of sight. I've had some MASSIVE battles since then but that one battle of 3 units vs 10 is what hooked me and keeps me playing.

[@renownedfearedatotalwarwar5584]

Not going to lie, I discovered your channel about 3 weeks ago and I love it. Personally I really started with Rome 1 on a crappy laptop in my single college dorm and spent almost every waking minute before dropping out and joining the military after a year. One of the best years of my life. Who needed a social life when you had Rome 1 in 2006. Though I agree with you on almost everything you've said I still happen to love Warhammer Total War (obviously), I'll try to put my thoughts into a coherent response. Symmetry is my personal enemy of war gaming. Whether it is an FPS or a strategy game, the desire these companies have to reduce incredibly complex systems down to the level of mainstream sports destroys what made me fall in love in the first place. Maybe I have a warped sense of "fair" but I find fair contests incredibly tedious to watch (it may be different when participating though.) I don't want two watch two trained fighters battle it out in an octagon any more than I want to see the allies vs the axis equipped with whatever the current meta is. War is inherently asymmetrical. Top to bottom, from terrain, to training, equipment, leaders, numbers, and ethnic/cultural backgrounds real combat and warfare is never fair. It's not about being fair. It's about being more ruthless, or cunning, or downright stubborn than the opposing force. If I wanted symmetry I'd be playing FIFA or an NBA2K title where nearly every variable is predetermined and certainly monetized. War isn't about following the rules, it's about breaking and adapting them. That's why war is an art and not a science. Your criticisms of Warhammer 2 are salient and I completely agree. I utterly despise the hidden combat modifiers on the higher difficulties and the bs mechanics/aesthetics of missile fire. But the gameplay, the battle and campaign, appear to be moving away from this particular characteristic I despise the most. Not in every way that I want, but it brings me back to the days of switching back and forth from my Roman, Numidian, and Germanic campaigns. Hopefully I made some sense. Anyway I hope CA is listening, they ignore you at the peril of losing even more fans. Love your content and going through your backlog of impossible battles!

[@Volound]

thanks for the comment. warhammer fans seeing the reasoning and agreeing has its own unique value and importance to me - and the future of the franchise may depend on it. i would be very happy for warhammer 3 to come out (should it ever) and be a game i really want to play and can really admire. the third age mod for medieval 2 gave me some of the best and most intense total war play of all time, and was the first game i played based on the LOTR universe, and made me way more interested in it. if i was convinced warhammer1/2 couldve done the same for me, i wouldve maybe actually played a warhammer game finally and it couldve done the same for me. maybe one day i will with warhammer 3, i just really, really, really doubt it with this trajectory. thanks meng. 💪

[@davewxc]

In Rome Total War - Barbarian Invasion, you could play as the Western Roman Empire and through a lot of effort win and restore the Roman Empire. Both as a pagan or a christian empire. The game allowed you to play your historical fiction but the campaign was realistically very challenging. In Attila, the Western Empire is doomed to fall. Even if you win. The tech tree forces you to lose your Roman technology. Going dark age medieval is forced upon you. You must also become completely christian. And if you don't play like devs want you to play and have the audacity to go and beat the barbarians at the border, the game punishes you with tons of negative traits on your emperor to ensure your downfall. Yes, winning battles gives negative traits to ensure you don't get anything out of it. The whole limited number of armies is obviously to hide their failings at programming AI. It's a feature that adds no value to the player. Politics since Rome 2 is as much fun as a dentist drilling a whole in your teeth. It only exist to annoy and punish, not reward. Single year turns also means all generals will die before you get attached to them. The whole system is vastly less enjoyable than the original Rome family tree and traits system. Because of this, I can't enjoy most of it. The game is railroaded into a miserable experience. Other factions are allowed to succeed so can be a bit of fun, but it always misses the good depth that was lost.

[@connorsherman7932]

Can we take a moment to appreciate that they removed all the actually useful formations. It used to be if your archers were getting shot by archers you could enter loose formation, and that was really important. Halberd and Pike units had specific formations to make use of their weapon reach, I don't even think pike units exist in Total War Warhammer. Schiltron, square, sheildwall, and Tetsudo don't seem to have any real effect, if they are even included at all.

[@djmustang000]

A fun campaign I ran with Fall of the Samurai, was where I had a house-rule that only armies which had a Foreign Advisor attached could use/recruit "Professional Modern Troops" and guns. Everything else had to be either modern "levy" or traditional units. It was a fun idea that made for great role-play and story in my head.

[@andrewshaw1571]

One of the most joyous things i saw in shogun 2 online was a close match that came down to essentially a squad of experienced yari ashigaru and a squad of katana cav being the only units left in the battle that werent completely wrecked. The cav player knew he couldnt use his cav in any meaningful way to finish on top with the ashigaru there so he baited them into chasing him away from the rest of the fight, dismounted and charged them on foot, nullifying the yari's advantage at high risk of having his horses chased off. It paid off, the katana squad got reduced to half strength due to the numbers disadvantage but routed the ashigaru, then remounted their horses and charged down the remaining premauled units who broke essentially on impact.

[@notanvokoler2564]

Спасибо за подробный разбор!

[@cp1cupcake]

I remember how spearwalls and phalanxes actually made sense. I mean, pushing the enemies back etc. I pretty much skipped from Medieval 2 to TWW and I think that some of the games may have had them, but the difference between how weapons worked got borked completely.

[@Y0UT0PIA]

@Based & Redpilled Department Rome phalanxes are a moving wall of death that mows down anything in front of them, especially low-armor unity without shields, but are especially vulnerable to being outmanoeuvred. of course only some factions had phalanx units, and the unit available to the various factions were vastly different, so army compositions varied widely between machups and gameplay was asymetrical (phalanx vs phalanx, phalanx vs light infantry, phalanx vs heavy infantry, phalanx vs missile- or cavalry-heavy armies all played vastly different). Rome 2s phalanxes were a buggy mess that often broke formation.

[@user-zg7fc6hh1f]

@Based & Redpilled Department cant say about Rome 2, but in Attila, which is basically same game, pike phalanxes lose to frontal charge of mediocre infantry.

[@AbyssWatcher745]

@Based & Redpilled Department Well in Rome 2 they can barely move forward without breaking formation being rendered in effective.

[@AbyssWatcher745]

@@CarrotConsumer Uhh no. Pike charges/pushes happened.

[@xanthos9110]

@@CarrotConsumer Pike formations advanced in rhythm, much like modern day military drills.

[@MrKaiyooo]

Imagine being a guard and the sneak magician just dodges all your sword slashes like it's nothing.

[@6ringsofsteel]

A game that comes to mind that funnels the player into specific gameplay is Xcom 2. The best way to play the first game was to make decisions to minimize risk and move slowly and carefully but the second game puts artificial turn limits in every mission, forcing you to rush through the game. So instead of taking calculated risks you have to the rush through every stage which just turns the game into a frustrating RNG fiesta

[@nervatraianus]

What's worse, this all makes perfect sense in their company policy. There is no way in hell you can create games with the polish and care of RTW or MTW2 at the rate they create their games now. So they just bog units down to melee/range and they just reskin them and adjust modifiers not only to differentiate time periods but even to separate infantrymen and cavalry. No regard for hit boxes, no regard for "differentiated attack direction" like it used to happen to RTW testudos. I don't feel like a fanboy, I feel like I am stating a fact: they make glorified mobiles games now. And it fucking sucks I am not saying people shouldn't be entitled to like what they do now (I sure don't), I just don't see how can anyone be so much in denial to deny what I am saying.

[@shorewall]

Exactly. I just wish they had the balls to say it. Then everyone would understand. But they'll keep pretending, and people will keep getting mad at the cognitive dissonance.

[@Gorbz]

While agree with most of your points on the technical aspects, I would counter in the case of Warhammer and Warhammer2 that having to have to have a general in your army and not having to tech up to get better units via research is because that is how the game it is simulating works, more or less. On the tabletop, a unit of Empire gunners did not operate any differently to a unit of Empire crossbows. The damage is different, as is the ability to puncture armour, but from a mechanical standpoint, they both fire directly at a target. I agree that the land having zero, or less, impact on a ranged unit does strip out some tactical oppotunities, but there is an advantage to taking archers over gunners, and that is in siege battles. Gunmen cannot curve their shots over walls to hit a unit onnthe ground behind them, but archers can. Gunners will find it very hard to hit more than the front rank manning a wall, but archers can hit everyone. In a recent Skaven game of mine, I had to include skavenslave slingers in my army that was sieging down Orc strongholds, because the jezzails and ratling guns were doing a very poor job of taking out units on the walls, and because I had taken a lot of ranged firepower, I did not have the melee infantry required to simply rush and scale the walls. Single entity units are very powerful on the tabletop, and used to be able to pin entire enemy formations in place for multiple turns, if lucky. What CA did was to boost up the health and damage of those heroes and lords, presumably so that they would not have a situation of having a heroic character trying to hold a breach, only to get stabbed by 4 guys and die, especially since heroes and lords do not have units to support them on the tabletop. However, you used to be able to attach them to units, which would give them much more survivability, and instead of all powerful heroes like Leon Leoncur tanking whole armies, have a system where you could spend gold to give a specific bodyguard unit to a general or hero - at least until they get a flying mount. Now, I'm not going to say that, despite my earlier statement, W1 and W2 are great, but they are faithful to the source material. Mostly. It would have been better if there were settlements to fight over on the battle map, rather than one of about 4 maps randomly pulled to surve as a walled city. The lesser settlements do tend to all end up the same - economic building, lvel 2 defence, and either a port, barracks, or economy buff third building. Whenever I look at a province, I instantly assign all level 1-3 buildings to the minor settlements, and use the captial for the 4+ buildings, because anything else is a waste. There is very little thought that goes into what to put in each settlement, especially on vortex campaign missions as chaos armies will just spawn in and wreck everything if you have not invested in the defence structures. As for supply lines, I thought that was being removed? Either way, it is damned if you do, damned if you don't. With them, you focus all your strength into a few powerful armies. Without them, there is nothing stopping people making multiple doomstack armies running everywhere, as they are paying a lower cost for maintaining those bruiser units tha with the lines. Vampire Counts can get around this limitation somewhat by making all their skeletons and zombies free upkeep, and spam huge numbers of low-tier armies, each led by a necromancer, and still win. Not by conventional means, but instead by, yes, abusing the AI and game mechanics, and blobbing up. Any damage done will be healed by the necromancer's aura, and dead units can be revived. Tomb Kings as well can do similarly, but they have to constantly pay to unlock new general slots. To my knowledge, no other faction can do this. But again, that kind of goes back to my point of beijg like the source material. Skeletons and zombies were cheap, and you could field huge numbers of them, and survive through attrition. Could it be better? Yes. But not by getting rid of single entity units. Instead have units move in formations, like they used to before warhammer became Age of Sigmar. Have single entities powerful, but not so powerful that they overwhelm everything. A unit of spearmen fighting 3 ranks deep should be able to damage badly, if not defeat, an Aracknorak spider, rathernthan get knocked flying by the initial charge. Don't have charriot units just push their way through the shield wall, and then run rampant behind. I will close this off by saying that one of my most satifying battles was in Rome 1. I had a general and 3 town watch defending a city from the Greek Cities. They had nearly 4 times the unit count I did, so I positioned my town watch to block the militia hoplite advance through the streets, and rearcharged with my general. I broke most of their militia hoplites that way, but not before myntown watch had to retreat to the plaza, and got wiped out. My general was down to about 8 men, and there were two hoplite formations on my town centre. I manuvered around and made fake charges so that I would step on the plaza and reset the capture timer, back off, and wait. Occasionaly I would make the full charge, but only to the rear, and retreat swiftly after. That way, I managed to win the battle.

[@SGWeber]

Thank you for mentioning the source material and formations for Warhammer. My thoughts exactly. Single heroes are supposed to be powerful because that's how the game works (it is/was a fantasy world afterall) but troops actually coordinating would make it more balanced since they'd be able to do damage like real troops. It's always bothered me that the Empire halberdiers, for example, are always described as disciplined professionals in the army books yet in Total War they fight in a loose blob rather than in a tight-packed wall like on the tabletop (and the real world)

[@voxvinity3006]

total war keeps being more of an rpg each time a new title comes out and that's a fact

[@townwitchdoctor5538]

I remember winning a campaign in the original shogun by camping in the corner of the map until I could spam Geishas, then sending them out to wipe out all the AI lords. I actually got Shogun again on Steam recently. In one campaign I controlled over half the map, had a massive treasury and multiple armies of max upgrade high tier troops, then I got my daimyo killed in a battle and my territory basically fell apart the next turn. Simultaneous rebellions in any province without a garrision or shinobi. Most total war games hit a point where you've won, there's still plenty of battles to fight, but you're snowballing and nothing is going to stop you. I was quite surprised to have certain victory swept away in an instant. I could have taken my armies back to capture it all and spent however many hours I'd spent all over again to retake it, but I just accepted it as lost campaign. Shogun was a real labor of love, the cutscenes, the atmosphere and voice acting, the fact that it was in both English and Japanese, the fact that the Portuguese Messenger spoke Japanese with a foreign accent. Even by RTW they'd lost some of that, but then all the extra stuff must have eaten into that budget quite a bit.

[@reybladen3068]

The developers should watch Baz Battles or Kings and Generals to see how flexible and creative a realistically simulated battle can be.

[@DoctorOctupous]

While i do agree with some points, and i completely agree with the previous video about range units, there is something that i have to say: 1) Devs choosing the way their game should be played isnt inherently bad, it is a sound and in principle good game design decision, because it allows the devs to protect the players from themself. Case on point XCOM 1: the standard tactic of the game is to spam overwatch and camp untill you trigger your first blob of enemies, and methodically clean the map with almost zero risk. While it is an effective strategy( and considering how awful the rng can screw you on higher difficulties, the only consistently good one), it precludes you from experience one of the strongest experience of xcom: loss, specificially the loss of your beloved soldiers. The devs themself said that xcom is at its highest when you take risks to achieve your goal, and that uncertanty you feel when you are at risk makes all the better the resulting (possible) victory. So in Xcom 2 they tried to discouraged the thing by adding turn timers to mission, which is the WRONG way to making sure the players play the way you want. You dont want to force people to play like you want by punish them(see the flags in rome 2 at launch), you rather want to encourage them by rewarding them, so that players themself would want to play like you want. And this is achieved in DOOM and DOOM eternal. 2) Doom and doom eternal gameplay is not "shit" imho, bc as i said they encourage you to use the glory kills system, it is done by rewarding the player ( in doom) with cool animation, and ammo and health, pick ups that are obtainable even if you dont glory kill. In doom eternal the resulting focus on that style of gameplay result in a more frantic, adrenaline filled experience which is very addicting and enjoyable; the more heavy reliance of glory kills to refill ammo and health result also in imho more planning during gameplay, you have to think what to kill next, what to preserve for later use, all in order to maximize you chances of survival ( like the devs said, the gameplay becomes a puzzle for you to solve). To dismiss this gameplay as shit is simply wrong and reductive imho. It is a upgrade to DOOM 2016.

[@keerf255]

I remember in total war Atilla how I flanked a formation with my archers on a ship, as my archers laid down fire arrows into THEIR BACKS, I watched a bunch of camel riders with regular linen clothes tank flaming arrow after flaming arrow, while they were straight up butchering heavily armoured legionaries who were seemingly incapable of dealing slashing horses and stood around waiting for their turn to be rockpaperscissored into oblivion by stats.No wonder Rome fell, with men like that. I then booted up Rome 1 to somewhat recreate the situation, and absolutely wrecked triple the numbers. Uninstalled most modern games after trying this out.

[@thepuppelpuppel4175]

But did you put them in a defensive testudo?

[@IamgRiefeR7]

My Total War was Warhammer 2 because a friend recommended it to me. I've sunk over 200 hours into it, 50 of those hours were recently after leaving the game for over a year. I tried out Shogun 2 I think half a year ago, and found that my "tactics" from Warhammer 2 (building a infantry wall and letting missile infantry and artillery go to town) didn't work, along with several other things made me leave it in a huff. Recently I watched videos from Pilps showing him playing the game. I was surprised to see tactics involved, watching entire armies rout after barely hitting his line of infantry after sustained artillery and matchlock fire instead of them brute forcing their way through and turning into a blob, using No-Dachi combined with a banzai charge to kill more enemies then even my artillery in Warhammer 2 could achieve against swarm factions. I booted up the game again, and surprise, I use the same tactics. Now after watching this video I now know why my experiences for many games has been lacking. Nothing feels like "I" earned it, more like I'm using a predetermined path for victory. Ethereal units in Warhammer 2 were a nightmare as the Empire, but using Sisters of Avelorn shreds them. I've tried custom battles in an attempt to improve my skills, but after a dozen defeats what won me the battle wasn't clever use of the terrain (I was on top of a hill) or use of my units, but rather killing the bullshit enemy units (night goblin fanatic whirly ball things can go die in a fire) and praying that my missile units and lord could kill the enemy lord fast enough so that they eventually run. I don't think I'll buy Warhammer 3, which is a shame because Total War got me into this part of Warhammer as I was already a fan of 40K. Guess I have another reason to buy the older games and talk another step into becoming a full doomer.

[@danc9014]

Didn't notice this until the rome 1 comparison but the sound design was excellent in that old game. The order to change formation shouted from the centurion of That unit, the sound of the shield exchanging hands, the sound of the metal hitting each other when locking into formation. Wow I miss that.

[@howardspeed3479]

I agree with a lot of your points, I grew up with Rome and Medival 2 and imo they are the all time greats but Rome 2 has improved so much over the years, it's almost a different game at this point, and u give it so much flack all the time :'( I think Rome 2 deserves a separate video abou how CA listened and fixed the game(even if a bit too late)

[@thatfellow7556]

So many things said here were in the back of my mind when I first played Rome II. Thank you for calling attention to these issues.

[@matthewbolingbroke5414]

Personally my favorite moment was in the Teutonic Campaign. I was playing the Teutonic Order and fought a large army of Lithuanians on a map covered in heavy fog. I advanced foolishly and watched as my elite footmen were utterly torn apart by angry pagans coming out of the fog seemingly from nowhere. I rallied the few units that lived, placed them on a hill and had them hold the horde as long as possible as the General and his 6 surviving bodyguards repeatedly charge the less disciplined units until it causes a chain rout among the Lithuanians, winning the battle with about 100 surviving soldiers out of an army of about 900. Haven't had moments like that in recent entries.

[@carl-os4603]

Just to think, a lot of mods for Rome and Medievel are implementing new working mechanics in strat. map through trait system, the best example - Europa Barbarorum 1 and 2. I always loved the situations when your entire army been destroyed except those few units which were holding the line almost untill death. I remember I managed to hold 4 parthian cataphracts with 2 legionary cohorts in online battle, they killed like 3/4 of my legionaries but didnt managed to win.

[@kronchikx6151]

Далеко же я забрёл. I really liked this video, as a fan of Total war: Warhammer II. +I also learned a little English)

[@user-qx4in2rq1z]

Kronchik X а я пока подтягиваю.

[@daniellewis984]

A reminder of this. To this day, I still play the older games. I have Shogun 2 and Rome Total War 1. I also play Factorio and Rimworld now. But I do not have any new titles from these studios because they haven't released anything new that I'm interested in playing.

[@youvebeengreeked]

Battle speeches have been utterly destroyed too, so bland nowadays. Medieval II had the funniest speeches, Shogun 2 had the most authentic speeches, and Rome I’s were just damn-right EPIC.